1951-03-16

Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that for many years past the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) and I have made representations annually to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the late prime minister, Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, for the adjournment of the house so that Irishmen and their friends might properly celebrate St. Patrick's day. This year the seventeenth of March falls on a Saturday, so that it will not be necessary to make that request; it is coming automatically. We, with the hon. member for Saskatoon city (Mr. Knight), invite all Irishmen and their friends to celebrate as they should because Saturday is followed by Sunday, and Sunday will be the day for recuperation.
I have one other request to make on behalf of, perhaps, the Irish. We have had with us for the past fifteen or sixteen years the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). Recently he celebrated his seventy-eighth birthday. He was applauded, I believe, by members on all sides of the house. He is not only my friend but is a friend of all of us. Having given the very best of services during the week to humanity in this house, he has also gone out on Sunday and looked after the spiritual welfare of many sections of this country. The other day on looking over a list of the members of the other place and their occupations, I found that there was not one clergyman among them. I am now suggesting that, inasmuch as we have several clergymen around this corner of the house who can also minister to the needs of the other sections of it, it would be a splendid gesture on the part of the Prime Minister to allow the hon. member for Fort William to go to the other place so that he may look after the members there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Fair: I am glad that there is applause on all sides of the house, and I hope that the Prime Minister will give this suggestion careful and favourable consideration.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I enjoy the House of Commons too much to leave it, and I am not yet old enough for the Senate.



TRANSFER OF DUTIES


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I beg leave to table copies of
order in council 1178 of 15th of March, 1951, passed under the provisions of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, transferring the control and supervision of the functions and duties of the microfilming unit of the national film board from Hon. Robert H. Winters to the Secretary of State, and transferring the said unit and all microfilming equipment and incidentals used by the said unit, except one Recordak enlarger and one Pako print washer to be retained by the national film board, from the national film board to the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE   FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION-CORRESPONDENCE WITH PREMIER OF MANITOBA

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to table, as return No. 37, the documents called for by the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), which was passed on March 12 last:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Manitoba or any minister or department thereof and the federal government or any minister or department thereof, in reference to the question of federal aid to education, dated at any time since January 1, 1947.
In response to the notice of motion with respect to the correspondence exchanged between the government of Manitoba and the federal government, there was a letter from the premier of Manitoba dated November 18, 1950, in which the subject of federal aid to education was referred to. This letter was tabled in the house on January 29, and is part of the correspondence that was published as an appendix to Hansard.
I am now tabling the exchange of letters between the premier of Manitoba and myself dated January 31 and February 6, 1951, in which the subject is also mentioned in the memorandum attached to Premier Campbell's letter. But this would form part of the
1316	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry correspondence dealing with the dominion-provincial conferences, and perhaps hon. members would wish you, Mr. Speaker, to direct that this correspondence be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of correspondence referred to, see appendix A, pages 1361-3.)



VALLEYFIELD BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved the first reading of Bill No. 148 (from the Senate) respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river at or near the town of Valleyfield, in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Rose Pap Bernstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Albert William Stone.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Yvette Bar-naby Shang.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Minnie Engle Fitleberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Carol Elizabeth Chute Levesque.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Lillian Cohen Turner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Georgina Catherine Christie Savage.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Irene Bour-geau Morin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Anne Cohen Bialer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Josephine Gibson Clark Mayou.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Henry John Lawrence.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Grace Shirley Kraminsky Levy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Bella Rashkin Deutsch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Gladys Eliza Cartwright Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Grace Helen Potts Worall.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, W. Chester S. McLure (Queens):: I
desire to direct a question to the Minister 

of Public Works, to be taken by him as notice, and I hope to get a complete statement on Monday next. Will the minister please make a full statement regarding the dominion building at Charlottetown, properties purchased and paid for, and such other information as when construction will begin? My people are asking for this information.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public V/orks):: I suggest to the hon. member that he put the question on the order paper, and we will give him a full answer. We will bring him right up to date as to the purchase of the sites, plans, and the amount that is now actually in the estimates.



CANADIAN CASUALTIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has yet received an answer to the inquiry I made on Thursday, March 8, regarding letters to next of kin of casualties in Korea.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Yes, I have. The answer is that we had had no knowledge of this at headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and we have instructed the detachment concerned to make inquiries. Having regard to the fact that these letters were anonymous, we have not yet been able to trace them down, but our inquiries are still continuing.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris).
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the
remarks that I was making last night on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), I wish to come back to what is now under consideration by hon. members. The amendment that has been moved is as follows:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion on the government's announced decision with respect to the final settlement of the five-year wheat pool and on the government's mishandling of the sale of wheat and other grains covered by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Different members on the opposite side have taken exception to the word "mishandling." Several members on the other side of the house have emphasized that it is the use of the word "mishandling" which makes it impossible for them to consider this amendment. May I suggest to them, and to others who have not expressed themselves but who may have been directing their attention to this particular word, that they consider the grounds upon which the government has announced that it proposes to make a payment of $65 million.
We have the unqualified statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), supported by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), that nothing is owing by the British government under the wheat contract. I would remind hon. members that this statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is borne out in full and very emphatically by the papers tabled in this house last night.
These records of the minutes of a meeting held in London last May and the subsequent confirmation of the position taken by the government of Great Britain make it abundantly clear that the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June 5 of last year in this house, in very brief form, indicating that this government concurred in the position taken by the government of Great Britain, was not only accurate but was an understatement of the extent to which complete and unmistakable agreement had been reached on that point by the two governments.
That being so, no matter on what other ground the money may be owing, it is certainly not owing under the wheat contract. In that respect we must take the position of this government, supported by the records, especially between the two governments, as evidence of that fact. Therefore any money that is being paid is being paid upon some other ground. If it is not on the ground that this government mishandled, and grossly mishandled, the wheat, then on what ground is it? It can only be on the ground that there was such a mishandling of wheat by this government that there is a substantial debt to the farmers of western Canada.
No other proposition has been put forward. It has been mishandled to the extent that some very substantial obligation, in the opinion of this government, was created independently of the contract between the governments of Great Britain and Canada. Therefore the payment that is announced by the government is something that the government now is saying they will do because of the way they let down the farmers of western 80709-85	*
Canadian Wheat Board Act Canada in their handling of wheat. That is precisely the position, and therefore "mishandling" is a very moderate statement in these circumstances which have led to the announcement that the government now makes.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have sought from the government some evidence of the way in which they arrived at a figure of this kind. It is true that at this stage the house is not called upon to vote for or against this payment. It is appropriate at the present stage, however, that the house should know the way in which the government arrived at this figure, in view of the fact that the government itself has chosen this debate as the time to make their statement in regard to the subject.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has added nothing yet to the information already before the house as to the way in which the figure of $65 million emerged. Let us reduce it to a simple form. The Prime Minister said: "No; it is perfectly true there was no obligation on the part of the government of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, after the succession of events which had occupied our thoughts for some time last summer, we did become aware of the fact that there was discontent among the farmers of western Canada. We thought it advisable therefore, when we learned that the Prime Minister of Great Britain was going to be here in December that we should indicate to him that there was this discontent; and that although all obligations under the contract had been disposed of, nevertheless they might take into consideration the wisdom or otherwise of recognizing that discontent, and presumably giving that discontent some measurable terms in money."
The Prime Minister has explained that the Prime Minister of Great Britain obviously was not impressed with the obligation on the British government to deal with the problem of discontent in Canada. Nevertheless he sought the consent of the Prime Minister of Great Britain to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject. Having received the assurance that there would be no discourtesy implied in that procedure, he carried forward his intention and evidently received the same reply there.
The information which he communicated to the government upon his return evidently did not close this subject completely, because the Minister of Agriculture then decided to carry the matter further, and go to Great Britain to discuss the subject. The Minister of Agriculture, however, did not base this upon discontent; he based his claim upon an
1318	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act obligation which he alleged existed, and he left the impression in the house that that obligation had been unfulfilled.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: And I hear one Liberal member to my right rear say that that was right.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: And I now hear him say, "hear, hear".


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: And I hear another Liberal member say "Hear, hear".


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: And I hear another. That is exactly the point I sought to make in my remarks earlier. No matter what explanation may now be given by the Prime Minister of Canada, the fact is that in the minds of a number of his supporters in the House of Commons the statement of the Minister of Agriculture did convey the impression that the British government had failed to carry out its obligation.


Mr. Ferrie:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Why did representatives of the farmers go over to the old country, if that is not true?


George Alexander Drew: The question asked by the hon. member supports what I say. He shows that in his opinion it is clear that the government of Great Britain did fail to carry out its obligation. I am going to say that is the only natural result of the statement made in the house by the Minister of Agriculture.
Nor was the hon. member who has just interrupted the only one who gathered an impression of that kind. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart), speaking in the house in the same debate, said, as reported at page 1216 of Hansard of March 13, 1951:
However, as a westerner, I am not satisfied that Great Britain under its socialistic government has played ball.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Now we hear another "hear, hear", and a Liberal member to my right rear says, "that is right," confirming what I have said, that the impression conveyed by the Minister of Agriculture is that the British government has not played ball.
Then at another point on page 1218 the hon. member for Yorkton is reported in this way:
However, having regard not only to the "have regard" clause accepted by the British Labour government and later disregarded by that same government, apparently with the implied approval of their


counterpart in this country, the C.C.F. labourites will still contend that wheat prices should be kept up and the price of flour kept down.
And at a later point the same member said this:
We will never get it under a socialist government in that country, which will repudiate things as socialists always believe in the repudiation of agreements.


Mr. Rowe:: Who said that?


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member for Yorkton. As has been said earlier in the debate, it is not for this House of Commons to tell the people of Great Britain what kind of government they should have-no matter what kind we have in Canada. And it is not for them to tell us what kind of government we should have, because if they did they would express a very dim view of the government we now have in this country, based upon their own political views over there.


Alphonse Fournier: The people of Canada do not say that.


George Alexander Drew: But the fact is that the government of Canada has, with the greatest p s-sible formality and in a very carefully considered communication, transmitted to the government of the United Kingdom, through the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom stationed here in Ottawa, the formal statement that it agrees with the government of the United Kingdom that all obligations had been disposed of as of May 22 last year.
That being so, it is not only incorrect but it is grossly improper-in fact, it is something that can be described only in terms not covered by the rules of the house-to suggest that the government of Great Britain, no matter what political persuasion its members may follow, has been guilty of default, or, to use the term that has been used in this debate, is not playing ball with the government of Canada and the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: What about oil in Iran and wheat in Canada? They are both the same, are they not?


George Alexander Drew: Well, this debate has covered a wide field, but I hope it will not range so far as oil in Iran at this stage.


Mr. Knowles:: Pipe lines at eight o'clock tonight.


George Alexander Drew: Then there is one further fact. The minutes of the meeting in London, on May 22 of last year do, I submit, call for a clear and unmistakable interpretation by the government, in view of other things that have happened and which have been referred to in the debate. We know that an attempt was made, no matter how skilfully the proposal was cloaked in diplomatic terms,

to have the government of the United Kingdom take up the balance of the loan of $65 million so that it would appear to be paying the government of Canada the remainder of the obligations under the wheat contract. But the government of the United Kingdom refused to have any part in an improper subterfuge of that kind which would have misled the people of Canada as to what was actually taking place. It is in the light of the attempt that was made-and that attempt incidentally is the only basis for the figure we now have before us with regard to the payment of an obligation which this government believes it owes the farmers of western Canada-that we must examine the minutes of the meeting of May 22 last. Paragraph (c) is the paragraph dealing with the final settlement of any questions still outstanding under the "have regard to" clause of the wheat contract, and in the minutes we find the following:
The United Kingdom was anxious not to be represented as having given assurances regarding wheat purchases in 1950-51 in return for the waiver of a claim by Canada under the "have regard to" clause.
That requires some explanation which has not yet been given. In the absence of any other explanation the only assumption is that it was being suggested to the government of the United Kingdom that a statement should be issued to the effect that because of the large purchases of grain and flour for the year 1950-51, not called for by the original contract, the Canadian government proposed to waive any obligations still outstanding under the "have regard to" clause.


Mr. Howe:: That suggestion is absolutely false, and the communique says it is false.


George Alexander Drew: I request the withdrawal of that statement by the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On what ground?


George Alexander Drew: The statement may be inaccurate; it is not absolutely false. I ask for a withdrawal.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: would imagine that the document from which the leader of the opposition is quoting would speak for itself. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) considers that the paraphrasing or quoting of it is not accurate, I do not think he meant anything offensive or had the intention of imputing motives to the leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I shall know how to interpret the rules in making reference to certain statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the future. In so far as the statement just made by the Minister 80709-851
Canadian Wheat Board Act of Trade and Commerce is concerned, may I point out that no explanation which will hold water has been given to the house as to what those words mean. In the light of what has already takqn place there is still owing to this house some explanation. I would suggest that it is just about time that a minister in whose word there is still some confidence established in this house in regard to statements made here, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), should say what did take place according to his recollection, because he was present at that meeting and he knows exactly what those words do mean. I should be very glad if he would say what they mean.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is a speech, not a crossexamination.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He thinks he is in committee.


George Alexander Drew: I was under the impression that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was going to rise, but I find that he is not.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, I might just say that my recollection in regard to these matters, in regard to all matters that have been brought up, coincides exactly with what has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Speaker, we see how clearly established is the difference between the Minister of Agriculture and the other members of the government who can speak in regard to what took place, because we now have the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirming the statement made already that this is; the correct interpretation of what did take-place, and that there is nothing owing. In so far as this particular statement is concerned we -can only wait until one of the ministers does see fit to give his explanation as to what that referred to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, the hon. gentleman was referring to the first sentence of paragraph (c) in this communique. It was to that paragraph and to that sentence that I was referring when I said that my recollection coincided with that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the interpretation he is giving to it is quite false.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about a point of order on that?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us have a point of order on that one.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no. Mr. Speaker, the Hansard record will show exactly what the minister of external affairs said, and he said that he confirms what has been said by the

Canadian Wheat Board Act Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said nothing to explain that particular sentence. So the statement by the minister of external affairs means nothing if it is confined simply to this particular sentence.
The exhibition we have seen this afternoon is simply-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the exhibition


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I
would ask all hon. members to refrain from interrupting the leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: The exhibition we have seen this afternoon of evasion of a reasonable explanation by ministers of the crown is simply another demonstration of the contempt in which parliament is held by members of the government which is about to ask this house to support a payment to the farmers of western Canada for the government's mishandling of the wheat purchases from those farmers during the past four years.
When members of this house find these evasions and these devices for avoiding responsibility so humorous it is about time that they came face to face with their own responsibilities as members, because they are responsible along with the government if they fail to express any desire for that information which would make it possible for the members of this house to pass judgment upon facts with some knowledge of what those facts really are.
Hon. members may find it very easy to impress themselves by their laughter and desk thumping, but that is confined to this chamber. Honour, public decency, respect for the hard-won traditions of a free parliament will never be determined by a vote in this or any other legislative chamber. Those are matters that are determined on other grounds. Unless the government repudiates the minister who has been guilty of this shameful and shameless conduct, then it must itself accept responsibility for recklessly endangering mutual confidence between the governments of Canada and Great Britain, which is so vitally important to us and to the whole free world at this time. Do not let anyone say that this is not being endangered. I have read from Hansard statements already made in this house reflecting on the government of a sister nation within the commonwealth. You have heard remarks of hon. members in the house this afternoon indicating that they share the same opinion. A minister of the crown, knowing what was done last May to confirm the final settlement of the wheat contract, has sought rMr. Drew.]
to convey the impression that the British government fell down on its obligations, that it did not play ball with this country, to use the expression of one hon. member. The last thing that should be countenanced in these critical days is an attempt by any member of this or any other government in Canada to try to save his political hide at the expense of the good will between two of the most important nations in the commonwealth.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The well-known wheat farmer.


William Earl Rowe: -I have listened, as I know you have, with keen interest to the excellent address delivered by the leader of the party to which I am proud to belong. Hon. members across the way may laugh, but you laugh with the weight of numbers behind you, because history will record that we have just listened to one of the ablest parliamentarians in the house at the present time. The laughter of some hon. members does not add any particular weight to that compliment.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, we enjoy certain rights in this house, and parliamentary debate still stands for something. It stands for something whether or not a party can, by sheer weight of numbers, pound the desks, cry "hear, hear", and make a roughhouse out of the proceedings, although I do not say that with any reflection on you, sir. I have been in this house a long time, and never in twenty-five years' experience have I observed a party so top-heavy that it can laugh off arguments about matters that are of the most vital concern to this country.
I know that my hon. friends may laugh because I am following my leader at this moment. The reason I am following my leader is that the trained men of the enormous Liberal party are silenced and are not saying much on this issue. Why do we not hear from some of the gentlemen who have championed the farmers' interests throughout this country for so many years?


An hon. Member:: Balderdash.


William Earl Rowe: We hear the odd ripple from the back. Sometimes it is intelligible, and sometimes it is nonsense. Sometimes it is humorous and sometimes it is ridiculous, but we hear no speeches from those men who know the wheat problem so well, those men who have been here for years. I have listened to many speeches about wheat and the wheat problem in western Canada, but what silence now! What a change there has been since 1946 and before! The one grand champion, who

finds difficulty in achieving unanimity with his own colleagues, is not here this afternoon. I refer to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I will say for him that whether he is right or wrong he is bold enough and loud enough to be the best defence the Liberal party has on this issue.
We have seen this debate remove some of the cloak that surrounds the issue. I sometimes wonder why it has taken so much effort to do it. Why has my leader had to struggle so hard in order to reveal some of the truths? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) laughs, but he has not made much of a contribution to the debate yet. His smile is a happy one, and his personality is congenial, but his debating ability so far as this issue is concerned is well smothered for fear that he may create further disunity among members of the cabinet.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) agrees with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). There is some hope of developing unanimity in the government, because we see at least one member who agrees with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said last night that there were only four points pertaining to this issue on which unanimity was needed, and which they have been considering. The first point was that the legal obligations of the United Kingdom had been settled. They were in full unanimity on that score. Second, they were fully unanimous that Canada had accepted such obligations as discharged as far back as last May. Those were two things they were in agreement on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did you say last April?


William Earl Rowe: Last May. If I had said last April you would have said I was wrong and you would have been right. You are often more than thirty days out, but in this case you would have been right if I had said April. I think it is too bad that the house is not large enough to enable all supporters of the government to sit on the one side. Then you would have more unanimity than you have now, because those to my right have been saying repeatedly that Great Britain did not fulfil her obligations, and they interrupted my leader in order to emphasize that point.
The third point concerning which there is unanimity in the government is that there was a widespread belief in western Canada that they could expect a further payment, and it was caused to no small degree by the speech of Mr. Strachey in Winnipeg. I could not help but wonder how they could emphasize to the Canadian people that Mr. Strachey had led them to expect something more. Anyone
Canadian Wheat Board Act who listened to the Minister of Agriculture during the last election campaign, and in 1946, surely would not try to blame it on a visiting minister from the United Kingdom, because I find that as long ago as 1947 the Minister of Agriculture said, as reported in the Edmonton Journal for January 17, 1947:
For the first time in Canada's history, the farmer can be assured of a fairly lengthy period of stabilized prices for his products, and a certain market for wheat and many other products, such as cattle, hogs and dairy produce.
He further said that the government had been criticized for drawing up an agreement that might not be successful, and that people were saying we had to take less for our wheat. He tried to emphasize that at that period we were receiving more for our wheat than they were in the Argentine, and more than they were in Australia. He was further reported as saying:
As a result of the agreement with Britain on wheat, farmers were guaranteed a good price until at least 1950, and it was not taking one cent out of the federal treasury.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is parliamentary to say it, but I have often heard such instances referred to in these terms:	The chickens are coming home to
roost! Look at the spectacle of what it has taken to reveal the real picture. I am not going to enlarge on what has been so well said by my leader, but the $65 million, being the unused portion of the British loan, has no more relationship to what the farmers claim for loss, or to any principle of compensation, than this argument has to the Einstein theory. If there ever was an evident attempt to mislead the Canadian people, and especially the farmers, it was the attempt to try to give the impression, sometimes even headlined in the press, that the United Kingdom was going to pay the $65 million, instead of the situation we have today of its having to be voted in hard, cold Canadian dollars.
I do not think we have had a sufficient answer yet as to the reason for this $65 million. I am not going to say for a moment that through this government we as a country do not have a moral obligation to the wheat producers of western Canada. Assuming that we have; who in this house among those who have spoken so far, or who among those great, silent men who refuse to speak, will say that $65 million is any more than a token payment of ten cents on the dollar on our moral obligation? The farmers of western Canada, and the farmers all over this country, know we have lost colossal sums of money through this bulk-trading blunder, through the government taking over the wheat from the pools and co-operatives of western. Canada. Whose responsibility is it?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: The guys who ate it.


William Earl Rowe: You should have a great deal of the responsibility, then. I do not want to hurt my hon. friend's feelings; he looks much better than most of the streamlined fellows I see around here. Again I ask, whose responsibility is it?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I told you; the guys who ate it.


William Earl Rowe: Last evening, in answer to a question, the Prime Minister said the wheat pools of western Canada were not consulted. In reply to a question I asked a short time later he said the wheat board was ignored, and that even the advisory committee was not consulted. So what is the principle on which this amount of $65 million was determined? If it had been $59 million we might not have been able to tie it so closely to the British loan. If it had been $73 million it would not have looked right. Had it been the $650 million the farmers say they lost it would have been more than the country could stand. Whose is the responsibility for the greatest blunder ever made in the history of this country in connection with marketing? The responsibility is that of the government which refused to take advice from the wheat pools, the wheat board or those who knew something about this trading, and from whom they had lifted the responsibility. They commandeered this grain; and as I say, surely ten cents on the dollar cannot be considered a satisfactory compensation for that moral obligation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Page John I. McFarland.


William Earl Rowe: Well, I notice you are not paging very many of your members right now. You ask me to page those from outside; evidently you have put the quietus on those inside, and I would rather hear from them. I know they can talk; I have heard them over the radio during election campaigns.
I know Mr. Strachey was not the only one who told the farmers of the west that never again would they be asked to accept these low prices for wheat; that from now on they would be getting as much as anyone else, and what they did not get then they would get later. I was through Saskatchewan myself, and if my campaign speeches were put together I think they would make just as sound and consistent reading to the farmers of the west as the different ideas that have been put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And you did not elect a single member.


William Earl Rowe: That is quite true; but when you do not have so many members in the


house and power does not mean everything to you it is perhaps something of a recompense to feel that you did not get here by telling the farmers of the west something you are now paying off at the rate of ten cents on the dollar. After all, there are other things than getting elected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends laugh, but that is true. I think this evident effort to convey the idea that it would not cost the treasury of Canada anything had more to do with this gunshot prescription of $65 million than any other single factor. What is the principle behind it? Is it just an easy way out because we are hoping for a surplus of four or five hundred million dollars? Is it a handout? Is it a political principle that is a boomerang? What is it? It has very little relation to the problem itself, very little relation to what has been lost. I think that question should be answered by the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or someone who has the unanimous consent of the cabinet, if anyone can speak for them. If not, I would like to hear them all speak. I like to hear the voice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I know he often speaks on things he knows quite a bit about. I like to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who comes from a district where his voice would be listened to. At least that was so at one time, but if he does not speak on this matter I am not sure when the farmers of that district will listen to him again in connection with wheat.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Many of the farmers would like to hear from him right now.


William Earl Rowe: I am sure in Manitoba they would like to hear what he has to say on this question. I believe they would like to hear from him in Saskatchewan as well, because he has broadened out now so that he represents them all. Apparently he has decided that discretion is the better part of valour, that the loss is so great that ten cents on the dollar is too small a matter for him to deal with.
There have been other failures, and I think we should know whether a precedent is being established. If no one is going to tell us what is the principle behind this payment, surely someone will tell us if this is to be a precedent; because this is not the only failure of this government. Why, their whole record for the last six years has been marked by colossal failures in every branch of agricultural production. What about the other products? These bulk traders imposed state control over bacon, eggs, cheese, and so on. According to "Foreign Trade of Canada, 1949",

Canada supplied Britain with wheat, wheat flour, bacon, cheese, eggs, apples, tomatoes, salmon and other foodstuffs; and in every instance these commodities were sold to Britain for substantially less than Britain received them from any other source of supply. Under state control and the compulsory sale of cheese to Britain, our farmers received ten cents a pound less than on cheese sold anywhere else in the world, and the same thing applies to wheat flour, bacon, eggs, and all these other commodities.
In the absence of the Prime Minister this afternoon, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us that this government is going to be fair; that this is not a political trick, and that this principle will apply to everything we sold? The Prime Minister said yesterday that if he finds even an expectancy in the country for support, we are going to give that support. He said there was a widespread belief in western Canada that more was due under the wheat agreement than had been paid; that such belief was due in part to a speech made by Mr. Strachey, and for that reason the Canadian government must now make a contribution, because the producers expected it. What about the other producers? We have a $65 million gunshot prescription for one kind of producer.


An hon. Member:: Shotgun.


William Earl Rowe: Maybe it was. It looks as though they need a shotgun marriage over there at any time. We have that prescription for one line of producers. What about the others? Do you think those are the only expectant people in Canada? They expect a provincial election before long. This does not satisfy their expectancy. This will not even restore the Liberal party of Saskatchewan, let alone satisfy the expectancy of the western producers.


Mr. Sinnoli:: Time will tell.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, because you are so silent in here; heaven only knows what you will say on this issue when you get out there.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I spoke in the house.


William Earl Rowe: That is right. The hon. member made a speech. I must say that I was interested and amused.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was not here to vote, though.


William Earl Rowe: I think the government owe a duty to Canada. After all, $65 million may not seem to be a great deal of money, but it means a great deal of money. It means' about $25 for every income tax payer in Canada. If the western farmers were paid what they lost owing to the state's mishandling of their
Canadian Wheat Board Act products, it would cost the average income tax payer of Canada $250. When these items come before us like this, I must say that I find myself in one hundtred per cent agreement with what the leader of the opposition stated this afternoon, namely, that you cannot laugh these things off. When we have people in every walk of life today struggling with the high cost of living, struggling to keep their sons and daughters at university, struggling to meet their budgets, men and women in all walks of life, then losses that mean $250 apiece to every income tax payer are matters that should not be laughed off, no matter how big the support you have in this parliament.
I am not trying to make insinuations. I know that there are those who think there must be a polecat under the table with regard to this agreement. Before this question is put, to the members who were so gallant and gleeful in pounding on their desks no matter what the argument was, and who tried to laugh off the leaders of the opposition groups on this side of the house, who in their speeches tried to minimize this issue, who tried to say that the loss is not three-quarters of a million dollars, who tried to say that $65 million is fair, I say this: How do we know we are not going to have the same reckless lavishness with all other lines of production in this country? Because some group expected it, and because we all expect a provincial election, should we make a settlement so arbitrarily made as this one?
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the minister owes to this house an explanation as to what the general policy is going to be. All those agreements I have mentioned, all the agreements we had with Britain for foodstuffs, have gone by the board. We have one for five years with the world, in the international wheat agreement. If this government refuse to take the advice or council of the wheat pools and the western farmers in Canada, and ignore the wheat board, they may make as big a failure of this as they have of the other agreements. But if they are going to pay ten cents on the dollar or less-if that is going to be the principle to be followed-then as trustees of the taxpayers of this dominion we should know whether we are going to be asked to pay, as a token, ten per cent of the expectancy of the cheese producers, of the bacon producers and the egg producers.
Somebody says there is a moral obligation on Britain. If there is a moral obligation on Britain1-and I do not agree that there is -then there is just as much and more here- imagine the spectacle we have, Mr. Speaker: the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying that there is no legal obligation; the Prime

Canadian Wheat Board Act Minister saying that where there is no legal obligation). The Minister of Trade and Commerce went over there last May-he said it was not April-and came back home and accepted that; and the Prime Minister last night said they accepted it. Then the Minister of Agriculture, despite that, went back in the hope of getting a settlement.


James Arthur Ross: That was just a publicity stunt.


William Earl Rowe: It was not even a good publicity stunt. He may have taken a friend with him, and he has even changed his mind since he came back. But if there was anything more ridiculous than for him toi go over and to hope to change that settlement, it was the Prime Minister himself asking the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom if he, as the Prime Minister of Canada-after all the efforts of these other champions of trade had failed-if he could go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Oh, what a struggle they put up to make the wheat producers and the taxpayers of Canada think it was not coming out of the Canadian treasury!
Now that it is bare of the disguising cloak and we see it almost as it is, the truth of the matter is that the $65 million has no relationship whatsoever to the balance of the loan that was not taken up by Britain. It has no relationship any more than about one-tenth to the loss itself. It has no relationship to the moral obligation to make that compensation because it is only ten cents on the dollar. That is all it is, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, unless it is explained further by these gentlemen who seem to be wiser in their silence than in their speeches. Unless they explain it further, it looks to me like a political principle, an easy way out, with the treasury flowing with money; it is trying to say to the western farmers: You may have lost some, but we gave you $65 million and we will deal with the other when we come to it; then the organization across the country can start to develop expectancies, and then we will pay them maybe a nickel on their expectancies.
I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture will be as great a champion for the egg producer, for the hog producer or for the cheese producer in Ontario as he has been in western Canada. If he runs another campaign and talks as loud and as long about long-term stability on a fair basis, they will not be satisfied, Mr. Speaker, with ten cents on the dollar, because they will say: If there is a moral obligation, then pay your obligation. If there is no moral obligation, do not insult us with ten cents on the dollar.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully for

the past twenty minutes to the hon. and genial member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). What I was trying hard to hear was whether or not he was opposed to this $65 million payment.


An hon. Member:: Are you?


John Lambert Gibson: Yes, I am.


James Arthur Ross: Are you going to vote
against it?


John Lambert Gibson: To tell you the truth, all I
am particularly concerned about at this moment is this. I had made an arrangement with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), who is listed as an Independent, that he would second a motion of mine asking that no funds be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund to be paid to the wheat producers. He is not in the house so I am now quite frank to say that I am looking for someone to second this motion. So far, I have not had any takers.


James Arthur Ross: This is hardly the right place for it.


John Lambert Gibson: I should like to have the hon.
member for Dufferin-Simcoe honour my motion by seconding it.


William Earl Rowe: I would be much out of order
if I did it right now.


John Lambert Gibson: I submit that the motion is
in order.


Mr. Ferguson:: The hon. member is posing
as an Independent; he is a Conservative.


John Lambert Gibson: I am not trying to put the hon. member on the spot. I know quite a few members around this house who are opposed to this payment but I have not found one who would second my motion. If no hon. member in the house does care to second my motion, I am afraid I am in the rather unfortunate position of being a lone independent.


William Earl Rowe: The rest of the house recognizes the rules. You cannot move the motion now.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: In taking part in this debate hon. members should bear in mind that some of the things that have been said with reference to Britain not having lived up to her agreement may lead to greater difficulty in marketing Canadian wheat in Britain in the future. We need the British market year in and year out, and I deplore suggestions by hon. members opposite to the effect that Britain has not fulfilled this agreement in every way, especially after the documents which were tabled last night have been made public and after the statement that has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I want to make it perfectly clear too, as has already

been said by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), that we in this party support the wheat board as the sole marketing agent for wheat. We go even further than that and we say that all grains should be placed under the wheat board.
In the time that I have been in parliament, Mr. Speaker, I have never seen an exhibition before similar to the one that we have had since Thursday of last week. We saw the the spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) rising in his place, and in spite of his full knowledge that the Canadian government had agreed back on May 30 of last year that Britain had fulfilled the wheat agreement in every way, attempt to mislead this house by making statements which have since been proven absolutely false.
The Minister of Agriculture made statements a number of times such as this one on page 1120 of Hansard:
The fact is that the British government accepted the position that this government did not agree.
He was there referring to the fulfilment of the "have regard to" clause. Then we had this statement on page 1066 of Hansard:
It was suggested both in this house and outside that the government had announced agreement with the British in their contention that they had met their obligations. That was not the case, and in the hope that a removal of that opinion might change the decision the re-opening of the discussions was pressed.
Then of course we have the document tabled in the house last night which absolutely and completely contradicts that statement by the Minister of Agriculture that the Canadian government had not agreed that Britain had fulfilled the "have regard to" clause.
I do not wish at this time to quote from that document; it has already been placed in the record in its entirety by the leader of this group. As if to further clinch the same point, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said this at page 1168 of Hansard:
I intend to show that the Canadian and British governments entered into an agreement that was beneficial to both the Canadian producer and the British consumer, and that the terms of that agreement were fully observed on both sides.
And to emphasize that statement even further, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said this in the last sentence concluding his speech on Monday night:
I am happy the way it has worked out, and I deplore the suggestion that the British government has not played fair with the Canadian people.
All I can say, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of the document that was brought down last night, is that any further reference to Britain not having fulfilled the
Canadian Wheat Board Act contract should not be made by any hon. member in this house, because surely it has already been proven that such an accusation is completely and wholly false.
This government agreed on May 30 of last year, eight days after the consultations had been completed in Britain, that the British government had fulfilled the "have regard to" clause in every way. The document produced last night proves my point. But eight days elapsed between the time that document was drawn up in Britain and the decision made by the Canadian cabinet.
Yesterday, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Melfort, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told us that within that eight-day period the farm organizations had not been consulted. I want to read the question and answer:


Mr. Wright:: Was there any consultation with the representatives of the western wheat pools or the advisory committee of the wheat board between the time the Minister of Trade and Commerce returned from England, in the latter part of May, and the time the government accepted the proposals that he brought back from the British government with regard to the final settlement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no consultation with the advisory board or the wheat pool between the return of the minister and the acceptance of the proposals. The proposals were proposals for the purchase of a certain portion of the 1950 crop. We did not treat as a proposal their declaration that they had fulfilled all their obligations under the contract. We treated that as their decision, and we accepted it as their decision.


Percy Ellis Wright: You accepted it, though, as a final settlement without consultation with the producers or their representatives.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no consultation at
that time.
There is the breach of faith in relation to this whole wheat situation. That breach of faith occurred when this government agreed that Britain had fulfilled the "have regard to" clause, without prior consultation with the farmers or with the representatives of farm organizations. This was literally nothing more than a sell-out of the western wheat producers and the western farm organizations.
Then last month we had the spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture making a flight to Britain and taking with him a representative of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the president, Mr. J. H. Wesson. I say that Mr. Wesson would not have made that trip had he known that this government had agreed on May 30, and had he seen the document that was produced in relation to that agreement. But I have no doubt in my mind that the Minister of Agriculture said exactly the same thing to the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool as he said to parliament and to the people of Canada last Thursday night, namely, that Britain had not fulfilled the "have regard to" clause, and

Canadian Wheat Board Act that the Canadian government had never agreed that Britain had fulfilled that clause.


Mr. McCusker:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Is he aware that one of the ministers of the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan has twice made the statement in the Saskatchewan legislature that Britain overpaid us?


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course I can answer the
hon. member. The statement made in the Saskatchewan legislature a few days ago has nothing at all to do with what this government did on May 30, last year, namely-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Why doesn't the hon.
member answer my question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am answering. Namely, not consult the farmer organizations before the government said the "have regard" clause had been fulfilled. Nothing the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) can say will get around that fact. Again I say-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: My question has not been answered.


Hazen Robert Argue: You can make your speech.
Follow me, and take your forty minutes. Nothing the hon. member for Regina City can say removes the clear fact that the Canadian government agreed that Great Britain had fulfilled the "have regard" clause, without having first consulted the representatives of the wheat producers.
I can say that, step by step, throughout the years of the agreement, and since that time, the government has not hesitated to play politics of the worst kind with the Canadian wheat board. I am just wondering if one of the reasons the settlement of the "have regard" clause was postponed from January 20, 1949 to July 31, 1950 was that within that period of time a federal election was to be held in Canada.


James Arthur Ross: Sure it was.


Hazen Robert Argue: And another thing:	For ten
months the government concealed the fact that by making the 20-cent payment in 1949 they were placing the wheat board in a deficit position.
The Liberal party does not have to go around at election time and make little, petty promises, or pass out a few dollars, in the hope that it will get votes, because by manipulation of the wheat board they have hundreds of millions of dollars of the farmers' own money; and by paying it out just before an election, and not revealing the facts of the situation to the farmers, they were successful

of course in misleading them to the extent that many farmers voted for the government.
Although a document was agreed to on May 30 of last year, it has taken the government ten months to reveal a transaction in which western farmers had an interest running to as much as or more than $100 million.
I support the wheat-board method of marketing grain, but I deplore the government's using the wheat board as a tool for its own political purposes and advancement. We have had one vote in the debate in which Liberal members from the west voted against a 25 cents a bushel final payment. Notwithstanding the very clearly stated facts, they have risen in the house and said that the British government should have paid more; but I have gone through their speeches carefully and I find that not one of them has said to the government, which in the final analysis is responsible to the Canadian wheat producers, "We want more than $65 million." Not one of them has said that-although when I make that statement I must add that I was pleased last night to see the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Helme) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) stand in their places and vote for the payment of 25 cents a bushel. I am going west at Eastertime, and a number of meetings have already been arranged for me. I shall be speaking in the constituency of Prince Albert, and when there I am going to say at each of the meetings that I was pleased to see that the hon. member for Prince Albert supported the C.C.F. motion calling upon the government to consider a payment of 25 cents a bushel, even though his colleagues from Saskatchewan voted against it.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party is a funny animal.


An hon. Member:: The C.C.F. is, too.


Hazen Robert Argue: They say one thing in Ottawa and something else in Saskatchewan. The other day one Liberal member said he was tickled to death that the government was paying $65 million. I think if he went back to Saskatchewan the farmers would probably tickle him to death. In any event, the $65 million, which is plenty for western farmers, so far as the Saskatchewan Liberal members of parliament as a whole are concerned, the $65 million which is plenty so far as Liberal members from other parts of Canada are concerned, is not enough for the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. For, according to the Leader-Post of March 12:
Walter Tucker. Saskatchewan Liberal leader, and other party officials were empowered Saturday by the Saskatchewan Liberal executive to co-operate fully with the Saskatchewan wheat pool and other organizations in an attempt to obtain at least

another $48 million from the federal government to compensate western wheat producers for wheat used for domestic consumption at $1.25 a bushel, between March 1, 1945 and February 17, 1947.
Liberals in Saskatchewan are going to co-operate to bring pressure upon the government to get another $48 million. They should begin by bringing pressure upon Saskatchewan Liberal members of parliament to stand in their places in the House of Commons and ask now for a further payment of $48 million.
To sum up, I deplore the statements which have been made that Great Britain has not fulfilled the contract. I am afraid that statements like that, which are not in any way based upon the facts of the situation, may well lead to difficulty in maintaining an adequate market in Great Britain for our wheat in years to come. I deplore the fact that Liberal members of parliament from western Canada have not come out and demanded a further substantial payment.
I say this to them in conclusion: They could not see fit to vote for the C.C.F. subamendment calling upon the government to pay another 25 cents a bushel, but certainly there should be nothing to stop them standing in the house and going at least as far as the Liberal leader of Saskatchewan by asking now for a further payment, over and above the $65 million, of not less than another $48 million.


Mr. Bruneau:: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member who has just taken his seat claims that the Liberal is a strange animal, because certain members say one thing out west and another thing here. If we were to follow up that argument, then I should think that if the Liberal party is a funny animal then, much as I hate to say it, the C.C.F. party is a monster. Because not so long ago in a speech in the house-


An hon. Member:: What is the privilege?


Raymond Bruneau: The question of privilege is this: I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) said out west that he was opposed to price control-


Mr. Maclnnis:: He denied it.


Raymond Bruneau: -and then he supported a subamendment in the house to the effect that he was for price controls. Now, that is surely saying one thing out west and another thing here.


Mr. Coldwell:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Saskatoon rose on a question of privilege and put the record straight. The newspaper in question, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, corrected its error.


Donald MacInnis: He would not know that.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Raymond Bruneau: Those are the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon. He claims the newspaper was wrong. That is all we were given.


Major James William Coldwell: The newspaper accepted his correction and admitted that its reporter was wrong.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested-


Mr. Knight:: On a question of privilege: my name has been brought into the debate. I say this, and I think I am safe in saying it, that the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bruneau)-I think that is the constituency he represents-accepted my word that the original report in the Star-Phoenix was wrong. I have in my files at the present time-unfortunately I do not have it in my desk here in the house-a further report from the same paper of a few days later recording the incident in the house and admitting the original report was wrong. I reported all this to the hon. member for Prescott and at that time he accepted my explanation in words to the effect that the press does make mistakes or that sort of thing. The matter has been abundantly proved both by the acknowledgment of the paper in question and by a letter, a copy of which I have, which was received-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member cannot start a new debate.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a right to put the record straight and to ask the hon. member for Prescott, who was elected under one guise and who sits under another, to withdraw.


Raymond Bruneau: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has placed on the record everything that is sufficient and I think the matter should be closed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have to say that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member has the right to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member has proved his point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member has a right to speak for forty minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the debate, not on the point of order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, you have just said that I have put everything on the record that was sufficient, but I just wanted to finish my last sentence and state that I have in my

Canadian Wheat Board Act possession a letter from men who attended that particular meeting and who informed me they had written to the Star-Phoenix protesting against the inaccuracy of the report and corroborating that I had always been in favour of price controls at any time they had heard me speak.
I have now finished with my question of privilege, but since I have been dragged into this debate, since my name has been mentioned, I should like to say a word or two about the subject under discussion. I had not intended to speak upon the matter but when my Liberal friends bait me I have to rise to the occasion. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) Vs made certain charges and has pointed out that the attitude of the Liberal supporters in this house who are from Saskatchewan is different from the attitude of the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan. He had before him the report of the Leader-Post from which he quoted, and I have also my own paper, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, to which the hon. member for Prescott referred. I do not see why a Regina paper which is an inferior paper should be quoted in this house without my putting my own paper on the record.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: May I ask the hon. member a question?


An hon. Member:: Make a speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind hon. members that a member cannot be interrupted without his consent.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I was asking the hon. member if I could ask a question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: He is scared of you.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would suggest to my hon. friends who see a C.C.F.'er under every bush that they make their own speeches. They have been challenged by the hon. member for Assiniboia to get up and talk for forty minutes and let us know what they think about this particular wheat settlement. The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) will have an opportunity to speak for forty minutes after I sit down and if he does I shall listen to him with great attention.
I was saying when I was interrupted that misrepresentation is not confined to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The Liberal leader in Saskatchewan has been keeping true to form. I should like to put on the record a certain statement of his which the hon. member for Assiniboia could have used if he had desired. The following report appeared in the Star-Phoenix:
Regina, March 12 (CP)-Walter Tucker, Saskatchewan Liberal leader, said Friday night in a radio


broadcast that moral support from C.C.F. speakers might have had "a definite influence" on Britain's decision to refuse Canada a further payment on the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement.
According to the date of the report, Mr. Tucker must have made that statement in full consciousness of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to the effect that they knew, that the Canadian government knew, last May, that the obligations of the British government had been completely fulfilled. Yet he proceeded at this late date, March 12, to say what I have just quoted. The article continues:
The Liberal leader said the British government had at one time recognized its obligation to make an additional payment at the conclusion of the wheat contract.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has dealt with that statement much more adequately than I can. Another paragraph in the article is in quotation marks as indicating the actual words of Mr. Tucker. This reads:
"Unfortunately the view of a definite obligation of the British government to make a substantial payment in settlement of her obligations under the agreement was not supported by all Canadian political parties."
It was certainly not supported by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is not supported by the majority of Liberals in this house. You have definite proof of the truth of what the hon. member for Assiniboia has said that what the Liberals in this house are saying is different from what is being said by their counterparts in Saskatchewan.
Those who have listened to this debate know of the gross misrepresentation that has been made here. The crux of the whole debate, the high point in the discussion, I think everyone will agree, was the production of the memorandum of the meeting between representatives of the British and Canadian governments which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) read into the house record last night. That was a memorandum of a conference held in London on May 22. On May 30-I draw this to the attention of my Liberal friends and of Mr. Tucker-the Canadian government acknowledged to Britain that she had fulfilled her obligations. They apparently did not tell anyone about it. Apparently Mr. Tucker did not know. Apparently the grain producers in Canada did not know. Apparently Mr. Wesson of the wheat pools did not know. The Minister of Agriculture knew, but he did not tell. He laid his plan for what I might term the great deception.
While I am on my feet I might say that I am in accord with the amendment which we moved to increase the payment to at least

25 cents per bushel. I am in favour also of the amendment moved by the leader of the Conservative party.


James Arthur Ross: Not the leader yet.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I mean the Conservative
amendment moved by the hon. member for Souris.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words about the false hopes which were held out to the western farmers of an ultimate further payment for their products by certain members of parliament and of the government. In my opinion that was shameful. I only hope that the same practice is not being carried on, and that false hope is not being raised, so far as the producers of all other commodities produced by all farmers are concerned. At the same time I should like to introduce into the House of Commons today something that was pleaded for by a senator in Washington with tears in his eyes just a few days ago, a little more of the word of the Lord. The fact that the government have offered in their generosity to cover up their sins with a payment of $65 million to the western farmers, and their lack of reasons for their action, remind me of certain passages in the Bible. I refer to St. Matthew, chapter 19, verses 23 and 24, which read as follows:
Then said Jesus unto His disciples, Verily I say unto you. That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
That is not simply a text; it is a parable given to all mankind to read, digest, remember and abide by. Let me say to members of the Liberal government that $65 million, or any amount of money, will not make it any easier for them to put it over on the public of Canada at the next election than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle and the rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Falsification and riches will not get them any further with any more success than is contained in the warning of the Lord.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to place one matter clearly before the house. I must confess I was somewhat surprised at the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he challenged my interpretation of what he said earlier this afternoon. I now have Hansard typescript, and I find that the remarks I referred to of the Secretary of State for External Affairs are reported as follows:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I might just say that
Canadian Wheat Board Act my recollection in regard to these matters, in regard to all matters that have been brought up, coincides exactly with what has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
It was to that statement that I referred namely, when he said that his recollection coincided exactly with that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to all matters that had been brought up. He then challenged my statement and said that he was referring only to the first sentence of paragraph (c) in this communique. Hansard does not bear out what he said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, in reply to what the hon. gentleman has just said about my remarks as quoted from Hansard by him, I would say that the matters to which I was referring at that time, and to which the hon. gentleman was referring, were those arising out of paragraph (c) of the document in question.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Browne (St. John's Wesi):: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Caiherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Before I
start, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that in what I am going to say I am not going to talk about the British agreement. I want to talk about and to support the amendments to the wheat board act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Could the house
decide now that no further discussions, on second reading, be allowed on the United Kingdom agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


William Scottie Bryce: In rising to support the amendments to this act, I want first to say how pleased I was when this act was put on the statute books away back in 1935. It was something for which the western farmer had fought a long time. While we can sit back now and criticize the things that the government has done with the board, there is no doubt that the wheat board has given to the grain farmer stability which he never had before. At one time we had in operation two systems which were available to the producer; that is, he could sell his wheat on the open market or he could sell it to the wheat board. But it was found that when wheat was scarce and commanded a good price, the farmers had a tendency to take the big price as long as it lasted and then, when the price fell, they immediately sold their wheat to the board.
It has been a great step forward in western Canada to have the wheat board handle not only wheat but also oats and barley. As to oats and barley, I believe further improvement can be made. But we still have speculation in rye and flax. You cannot go to a farmers' meeting in western Canada without being confronted with the questions: When is the wheat board going to take over rye and flax? When are they also going to be taken off the speculative market? Why should the farmer have to sell his flax and rye on a speculative market when we have the facilities for handling those grains in a pooling system?
I should like to quote from the Toronto Daily Star of January 29, 1951. This statement relates to some remarks the editor made with reference to a statement made by Professor McDougall of Queen's university, and is as follows:
The strong feelings expressed by the farm representatives are rooted in the history of Canadian grain marketing. During the many years when grain was traded on the Winnipeg grain exchange, many farmers believed, correctly or incorrectly, that speculators were depriving them of profits. The great majority appear content to have the government market their grain through the Canadian wheat board, with the year's price assured when planting begins. Practical experience, not merely theories or suspicions about private grain companies, underlies prevailing prairie opinion about the wheat pools. These giant co-operatives now handle virtually half the grain produced in the three prairie provinces. Through them the member farmer can assure himself of fair grades on his grain and minimum handling charges. The pools pay the farmers dividends based on the volume of grain they market, and during the quarter-century in which the pools have operated these patronage dividends have totalled more than $27 million. To stay in business, some private grain companies have been forced to do likewise. Where else in Canada do private firms pay dividends to their customers?
In view of such results, it is futile to tell grain growers that their pools have no real value.

This shows what the farmer thinks. We have come a long way since the days of Roderick McKenzie, Colin Burnell, Dan Chapman and other men like that who fought for the right to be allowed to load their own grain in a car without putting it through the elevator. Along with these can be added names of men from Saskatchewan and Alberta who have been pioneers in the farm movement in those provinces. The dreams of these men are gradually becoming true, but as long as we leave rye and flax in a speculative market we still have something to fight for.
Last fall it was estimated that western Canada would have a crop of flax of about three million bushels; that is, for the 1950-51 crop year. Statistics show that about two and a half million bushels were delivered up to about December 1, so the tremendous increase that took place in flax prices never gave any benefit to the man who produced the flax; because I would say 75 per cent of the farmers market their crops when they have to make their payments-and that is in the fall-and do not wait until the spring to sell their crops. Of course some farmers do; some who are financially well fixed can play the market, and delight in doing so. But the bona fide farmer who is out for stability and steady prices over a period of years does not try to play the market.
I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members the fluctuation that took place in flax in six months. On August 1, 1950, the price of No. 1 C. W. flax was $3.63; on September 1, 1950, it was $3.82; on October 2, 1950, it was $3.68; on November 1, 1950, it was $3.58R on December 1, 1950, it was $3.81; on January 2, 1951, it was $4.21; and on February 1, 1951, it was $5.71. You have a spread there of $2.08. The farmer did not get that. That went into other channels. I leave you to guess who got it.
Under the pooling system all producers agree to accept the same price, which would in most cases be an average price. I would at this time urge the government to place flax and rye under the wheat board because I honestly believe it is beneficial to the producers of grain, no matter what grain he is producing. I am not going to deal with the speculation which has taken place on rye over a number of years, as I have put that story on record here before. But what has happened to flax and rye on a speculative market could happen to any grain, and we know that the wheat board could and can protect the farmer.
The wheat board is still using the speculative market to sell oats and barley against the wishes of a large majority of the western
Canadian Wheat Board Act producers. This is borne out by some of the recent pool conventions where resolutions were passed asking that the wheat board discontinue the use of the speculative market in the selling of oats and barley. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their most recent brief asked that the use of the speculative market be reduced or eliminated altogether.
I would have liked to bring in an amendment at this time to include these things, but I have read very carefully the remarks you made two days ago, Mr. Speaker, and I had an idea you would rule me out of order. I want to play safe, but to my way of thinking as a layman, rye and flax are tied in with barley, oats and wheat. The amendment that I would have liked to bring in at this time would have been quite all right so far as I am concerned, but I have never been able to look at a thing in a legal way as you can, sir, and sometimes when I hear some of the legal opinions expressed in this house I am glad that my mind does not act in that way.
I think I have made my point quite clear. I do hope the day is not far distant when the western farmer will market all his grain through the pooling system, and through the wheat board. While I shake my head and frown sometimes when I see and hear the things that the wheat board is blamed for in connection with political manoeuvring, I hope that not only this government but any other government that is in power in Canada will get rid of that sort of thing and not make the wheat board a political tool.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like
to say a few words in support of what the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) has just said. We are supporting the amendments which are in this Bill No. 5, which is now before the house, but I wonder whether they will be implemented or not, because last year we passed an amendment in this house to the wheat board act, which gave the government authority to add two additional members to the wheat board. So far as I know that has not been implemented up to date.
In my opinion the present members of the wheat board are overworked. As a matter of fact, we are simply killing these men. They are valuable men; they are men who have done a very good job for the western farmer in the marketing of his grain. Probably they are three of the best informed men in grain marketing in the world today. It is a shame that we should overwork them. It is a shame that they should not have some more assistance on the board, because the marketing of coarse grain has become quite a problem.



J 332 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Some of the things that we are suggesting, and I am going to suggest as we go along in this debate, are not offered as a criticism of the wheat board itself but as a criticism of the authority the government is giving them in the matter of the marketing of our grain. I am sure that when the western farmers asked that their grain be marketed through the board they had three major objectives in mind. First, they preferred an average price for the grain that they had to sell over the years. They have tried for the last thirty or forty years to guess the market as to when they could get the best price for their grain, and they have come to the conclusion that as far as they were concerned they would rather see their grain sold by some organization or some board and obtain an average price for that grain over the years so that they would not have to guess the market. The second reason why they preferred to have their grain marketed under a board system was to get away from the speculative market and to prevent speculation in their products.
The third reason-and I want the eastern people to remember this-was that we in western Canada wanted to get our grain to the ultimate consumer in the most direct method that was possible and with the least margin between what the consumers in eastern Canada had to pay and what we as western producers received.
Under the present wheat board system I think we have gone only part of the way in accomplishing those objectives. The first objective we have accomplished fully. That is, we do get the average price that is obtained for our grain over the years, and we do not have to guess the market.
The second matter, that of preventing speculation, has only been partially accomplished because the board are continuing to use the Winnipeg grain exchange in the marketing of our coarse grains. It has been very definitely indicated to the government by various farm organizations that they would prefer to have the board stop using the Winnipeg grain exchange as the method of marketing of coarse grains.
I hold in my hand the twenty-sixth annual report of -the Saskatchewan Co-operative Producers, Limited, and under the heading "coarse grains marketing" the following appears:
A resolution passed at the last annual meeting of delegates urged that the speculative element in marketing grain should- be eliminated and a marketing system established which would ensure stability in prices, both for producer and consumer. The resolution also asked that the wheat board's coarse grains marketing policy be changed to give effect to the wishes of organized farmers in this connection. This matter was also taken up with the govem-

ment in the submission above referred to and it was urged that the marketing of coarse grains should be the responsibility solely of the Canadian wheat board and that the speculative market should be closed.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their last submission to the cabinet, which they presented- just recently, had this to say: Our convention favoured the continuation of the wheat board as the sole marketing agency for coarse grains but they expressed the view that the board should make only the minimum use of the future market in order that experience may point a way to a sounder and more acceptable marketing policy.
In other words, they want the board to discontinue the Winnipeg grain exchange except in a moderate way.
I had a return tabled in the house recently in answer to a question of mine. In the question I asked the government as to the amount of sales of each coarse grain in the Winnipeg grain exchange. The return was tabled on February 9. I am just going to give the round figures. It says that the wheat board bought 80 million bushels of oats from the western producer and 53 million bushels of barley. It shows that of that 80 million bushels of oats which they had bought from the western producer, 65,785,000 bushels were sold through the Winnipeg grain exchange. Of the 53 million bushels of barley bought from the western farmer,
37,808,000	bushels were disposed of on the speculative market, through the Winnipeg grain exchange. I know that with the board controlling all this grain there is not the same speculative element on the market that there was before we had the board, but nevertheless there is -a speculative market, and I want to give the reason why. The reason is this:	-climatic conditions in this
country are such that when we thresh our crop in western Canada in August, September and October there are large deliveries of coarse grains. Those coarse grains must be moved or can be moved more cheaply to eastern Canada before navigation closes.
As it now operates, the wheat board does not ship grain, -except to Port Arthur and Fort William. Therefore they have to sell large quantities of that grain, as is indicated in- the return made to me, on the speculative market in- Winnipeg. They have to sell it on the Winnipeg grain exchange, so that the commission firms may get possession of the grain and move it to eastern Canada before navigation closes.
The return tabled- in my name shows that sales of oats by the Canadian wheat board in the months of August, September, October and November in the 1949-50 crop year were, in August, 6,843,319 bushels; September, 8,816,078; October, 11,158,399 and November, 11,653,206. The other months dropped to 5

million or less. During these same months there were sold on the Winnipeg grain exchange the following amounts of oats: August, 6,596,000 bushels; September, 7,365,000; October,
8,880,000	and November, 10,128,000.
This grain was sold to the commission firms through the Winnipeg grain exchange. During those months the price of oats in particular was much lower than it was in the early months of the following year. By March the price had jumped from approximately 90 cents, as it had been in the fall, to well over $1.25.
My contention is that we will never have a satisfactory wheat board until it is prepared to move this grain from western Canada to the terminal elevators in eastern Canada, to keep control of the grain, to establish selling agencies in eastern Canada and to sell the grain direct to the consumers in this part of the country. To do that they will have to have more personnel on the board. But as it stands at the present time, the small consumer or small co-operative in eastern Canada, the small chap in this part of the country who has a feed plant and grinds that feed to sell in his neighbourhood, finds that he cannot deal directly with the board.
I know the provisions state that the board can sell directly to him. Nevertheless the procedure is such that he is not able to buy directly from the board. I have before me a copy of a letter sent to one of the eastern mill owners who is grinding feed to serve his own locality. This man wrote to the board to see if he could buy directly from it, and this was the advice they gave him:
It is the general practice for eastern feeders to procure their supplies of feeding grains through the commercial channels in the Winnipeg grain exchange. Most of these organizations maintain stocks in positions applicable to the requirements of the eastern trade. Daily quotations may be procured from such firms. All the forwarding details and collections are the responsibility of such forwarding firms.
Then, proceeding to tell him how he can buy directly from the board, they say:
The Canadian wheat board does not forward coarse grains beyond the in store Fort William/Port Arthur position. If you so desire, however, this board will sell such grains as they have on hand to eastern customers upon application. The prices will be those established at the close of each day's market. Such prices are in effect from the close of one day until 9.30 the following morning. These prices are available at all large trading centres across Canada, and are published daily by the Canadian wheat board.
When such purchases are made, it is the responsibility of the buyer to appoint an agent such as a bank or an accredited legal firm to take delivery of documents covering the grain required. It is also the responsibility of the purchaser to arrange with terminal elevators at the head of the lakes for the loading of such grain. You will also be required to file orders with tne railroads giving proper
Canadian Wheat Board Act
destination. The Canadian wheat board will deliver to your agent the warehouse receipt covering the grade of grain required in some designated elevator in Fort William/Port Arthur. Such terminal elevator would require that these documents be turned over to them before the grain is loaded out and billed for your account.
And then they go on to say:
The procedure is rather involved and I doubt that any saving would be made by you in following such a course.
The average small co-operative in eastern Canada, in other words, just does not have an agent in Winnipeg. He does not have an agent at the head of the lakes. The result is that he must depend upon a commission firm in Winnipeg to bring that grain forward to eastern Canada and thus make it available. The result was that this year our harvest was late and very little of our grain was moved into forward positions in eastern Canada to serve the eastern feeder during the winter months. I believe if the board had been handling the matter and had not been depending upon commission firms it could have moved greater quantities of that grain into forward positions in eastern Canada.
After all, those of us in western Canada are interested in making our feed grains available to our customers in eastern Canada in the best possible way. We would like to see that grain placed down here in eastern elevators. We want the grades maintained right up to the time the ultimate consumer gets that grain. At the present time the grain loses its identity at the head of the lakes. The commission firm buying it up there brings it to eastern Canada and is permitted to mix it or do anything it likes. The result is that the feeder in eastern Canada is not getting as good a grade as he should be. I have seen many samples of feed grains being sold in eastern Canada, and they certainly have not been the grades of grain we sell in the west. It is mixed before it goes to the small mill owner, the small crushing plant or the co-operative in eastern Canada.
I do not think our wheat board will be the success it should be in the marketing of our coarse grains until it takes the responsibility of bringing the grain forward to eastern Canada and placing it in terminal elevators, so that the producers in eastern Canada may go to those agencies and make direct purchases of their requirements, in the knowledge that they are getting a fair sample of the grain they are supposed to be purchasing. I believe this could be done; to my mind there could be no objection to it.
That is what our farm organizations are seeking. A year ago, because of the quality of the feed being sold in eastern Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in their presentation to the cabinet said, as it is set
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Wheat Board Act out at page 12, that an investigation should be made into the marketing and distributing of feed grains going into protein feeds in Canada, because of the mixing which takes place. I believe much of that could be prevented if the wheat board were to move the grain to forward positions in eastern Canada.
Another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the government is that we should make greater use of the port of Churchill. At present there is in storage at that point approximately 450,000 bushels of grain. The capacity of the port is 2,500,000 bushels. It has a drying capacity of from 15,000 to
20,000	bushels of grain every twenty-four hours. We are not moving any grain to that port for drying. I suppose the reason is that the wheat board believes that that grain which needs drying will be difficult to sell to European buyers out of that port when ships are available next July.
I would point out that a lot of this damp and tough grain is feed grain which could be moved into that port, dried, and then moved to the maritime provinces, if the wheat board wanted to take the responsibility of chartering vessels, to the elevators at Saint John and Halifax and made available for feed in eastern Canada. I hope the government will endeavour to make the wheat board the useful agency that it can be in the marketing of our grains.
I agree with the amendments provided for by this bill. As a matter of fact when I spoke on the speech from the throne I indicated that there had not been some mention made of amendments to the wheat board act which would do exactly what is done by section 3 of this bill, that is, give the wheat board authority at the end of each crop year to close out the pool and make some arrangement to take over the grain that remained and carry it forward into the next pool year.
When the bill is in committee we will have some suggestions to make and amendments to offer. I think perhaps the bill is loosely worded because it does not indicate at what price the government shall take over the grain. It simply states that the government may take over the grain. I think there should be an obligation on the government to take it over within a stated period.
We would then be passing a bill which meant something, not just placing another piece of legislation on the statute books as we did with the amendment last year to the wheat board act to increase the membership to five. I hope the government will implement that amendment passed last year so that this board will be able to do an even more efficient job than they have been doing in the past.

I believe they have been doing a most efficient job in the marketing of our grain as far as their end of it is concerned. I do not agree with all the policies that they have had to carry out on behalf of the government but, as I say, they have done an efficient job. I am one hundred per cent behind the board method of handling our grain in western Canada.
A. Earl Catherwood: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has referred to the amendment passed last year to increase the board membership to five. I certainly endorse that wholeheartedly and I would like to see one of the new members come either from Ontario or eastern Canada. I know the feed men and dealers in Ontario would strongly support this idea as they feel it would give a more efficient handling of feed in eastern Canada. I strongly support the suggestion.
Motion (Mr. Howe) agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-"Pool period" defined.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I have had to keep quiet for some days because I have taken full advantage of every opportunity afforded me to speak. However, I am not going to go over all the details that have been dealt with. I was one of the members who had questioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 5 and I was disappointed that I could not speak at that time. Some people may wonder why I have not spoken again, and I am taking advantage of this opportunity to say a few words about coarse grains.
I am sure that our party is in favour generally of these amendments, but I should like to say just a few words about oats. I have always been a supporter of the wheat board, and am still. I am in favour of these amendments in principle, but there has been considerable dissatisfaction in connection with feed grain. As an example, a neighbour of mine has been growing registered seed. His product was being properly inspected and as he lived only twenty miles from the United States boundary there were people from the United States coming over and offering 90 cents a bushel for his oats. He wrote to the wheat board for a permit to sell his oats to the United States buyers who were ready to truck it away, but was refused.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course he was.


James Arthur Ross: I think some of the regulations are pretty stiff under the circumstances. Then there is the other matter that was dealt with by the two speakers just



IS, 1951

[Stage Direction]
before we went into committee. I refer to the differential between the price paid to the farmer and what is paid for feed in places like Russell and Glengarry counties close to Ottawa. Last year our final settlement for oats in my neighbourhood was approximately 70 cents, but the hon. member for Russell has stated that on April 5 he paid $76 per ton for oats. You can figure that out into the price per bushel and readily see the difference between what the producer gets and what the consumer in eastern Canada had to pay for his feed grain.
I think something should be done to improve the method of handling. Subsidies are being paid by the taxpayers, of which the producers pay their share, and the feeders down here should have been able to buy oats on a pooling basis at a price much closer to what was received by the producer. I should like to see some improvement made in this connection which would benefit both the producer and the feeder.
I do not want to delay this bill because, as I said, I am quite sure that this party is in favour of the amendments. If there has been hardship in connection with this year's crop it is most essential that some provision be made to meet it. I hope that as we take up the bill section by section something can be done to improve it still further.
Percy Ellis Wright: Will the minister indicate what is the position in connection with implementing the amendment passed last year to increase the membership of the wheat board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My bon. friend said that the membership of the wheat board is made up of the ablest men to be found in Canada. I am not sure that he did not say in the world. If I could find a fourth ablest man I would be very glad to appoint him -to the board. It is not easy to get men of that calibre. I am not willing to take anything less. I am not willing to take a man who is not up to the calibre of the three men I have on that board. If my hon. friend can name a man who knows as much about marketing wheat as those three I will be very glad to appoint him.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am afraid I cannot, but I am afraid that one of these three men will be dead inside of another eighteen months unless some assistance is given. I think you have got to take that into consideration. These men cannot carry the load they are carrying indefinitely. In my opinion even a man who did not have all the qualifications of the three men presently on the board would be better than no man at all.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would question that. I would want to have the board tell me that the man I proposed to appoint would actually be a help to them rather than otherwise. I know enough about boards to know that a man who is not competent actually slows down the work of competent men rather than speeding it up. Therefore I am very careful about making the fourth appointment, although I have no objection to doing so, and would do so if the board would indicate to me that the appointment of any certain man would speed up their work.


Mr. Applewhaite:: When the minister introduced this bill he referred to the difficulties and delays caused by the situation the country finds itself in with respect to tough and damp grain. I shall read one sentence only. At page 1052 of Hansard for March 8 he said:
I hope it will be possible to find storage for stocks of tough and damp grain remaining on farms, as well as terminal accommodation for the tough and damp stocks still in country elevators, before warm weather sets in.
I am in this position in this debate. There is no wheat in my constituency but we have in Skeena a very good elevator owned by the dominion government with a capacity of
1,250,000	bushels, constructed by one of the world's outstanding engineers, with a drying capacity of some 48,000 bushels per day, depending of course upon the moisture content of the grain. In view of the fact that this government-owned elevator has stood empty for some six years, and the country as I understand it finding itself with an embarrassingly large quantity of tough and damp grain on hand at the present time, my question to the minister is: Have they considered, and if not will they consider, making use of their own elevator for the purpose of taking care of some of this grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be very glad to put that question to the board. I see the members sitting in the gallery so I will be able to do that quite soon. I know that with respect to other wheat crops it has not been found feasible for marketing reasons to use the Prince Rupert elevator as an outlet for west coast grain. I have not inquired from them just what the effect of the tough and damp grain situation is but I will do so. I can assure the hon. member that there is no lack of desire on my part to have the Prince Rupert elevator in operation once again.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I believe the suggestion made by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) to increase the number of members of the board is a good one. Sometimes these days heart attacks occur very suddenly, and we would then find it necessary to appoint someone. I know that the minister possibly has

Canadian Wheat Board Act someone in mind, and I believe such a man might carry on the duties of a deputy until such time as he had acquired enough experience to carry on as a regular member.


A. Earl Catherwood: The minister intimated that if he could find a good man he might possibly consider appointing him to the wheat board, and I should like to ask him to give consideration to my previous suggestion as to the appointment of a member from eastern Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The duty of the board is to market wheat, oats, and barley from the designated area. Eastern Canada is not in the designated area. I think my hon. friend has in mind appointing a man whose objective would not be the same as the objective of the present three members of the wheat board, which is to sell wheat, oats and barley from the western provinces at the best price obtainable.


Hazen Robert Argue: Last fall, as all members are aware, we had the greatest difficulty getting sufficient cars and elevator space to market even the eight bushel quota which was first established. My question has to do with the quota system. I am in favour of the quota system, and when it is applied equitably I think it is to the advantage of all producers. I should like to know why the eight bushel quota was lifted at a number of points, to my personal knowledge, long before the producers at those points had anywhere near the eight bushels delivered to the elevators. There is one elevator point within a few miles of my home, and I know that on October 5, the Thursday before Thanksgiving, the quota there was lifted entirely. At that time the farmers had marketed only a small portion of the eight bushel quota, and it left marketing at that point in a mess. I know that up until a month or two ago a good many producers in that area had not marketed a bushel of grain. I want to say I am in favour of the quota system but I wonder why consideration was not given to the marketing situation at some of these points before the quota was lifted entirely.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. The quota system is operated by the wheat board, and I presume it is operated according to their best judgment of how to best take care of the crops in the area. I have heard other suggestions that quotas have been lifted too soon, and while quotas were in effect I have heard suggestions of great injustices that were caused owing to the fact that, while a man could not deliver within the quota of his own elevator, he could deliver into someone else's area. We get complaints both ways. However, I think the

board has had a good deal of experience in operating the quota system, and I am sure they use the best judgment that they can bring to bear on the manner in which the quotas operate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Could the minister give me a more complete answer on the estimates? On the other hand, if the wheat board report is to be referred to the standing committee on agriculture that will be fine. We will get the information there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since my hon. friend has asked about a particular point, a question on the order paper would be referred to the board and would probably elicit the answer he wants.


Hazen Robert Argue: A month or so ago I referred to the situation that prevailed at Moose Jaw last year. I wonder whether the minister knows anything about that. If he does not, I will leave it to some later date.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, I do not know anything about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know that any member of the agricultural committee has the right to call for a meeting thereof, but is the minister prepared to have the wheat board report referred to that committee again? I should like to see that done. I think it is in the interest of the wheat board system to have the board officials appear before the committee. They have always given an excellent account of themselves in the past, and I believe they will do so again. I think the producers of western Canada feel better if the officials of the board appear before the agricultural committee at which time we can go over their annual report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say at the moment is that consideration will be given to that request. I might remind the hon. member that the overworked wheat board of three members is pretty busy, and it means a week or so away from their normal occupation. However, I will discuss it with the board and give my hon. friend an answer later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Transfer of wheat from one pool period to subsequent pool period.
Hazen Robert Argue: Section 3 reads as follows:
The governor in council may authorize the board to adjust its accounts at any time by transferring to the then current pool period all wheat delivered during the preceding pool period and then remaining unsold, and the board shall credit to the accounts for that preceding pool period, and charge against the accounts for the current pool period, such amount as the governor in council deems to be a reasonable price for the wheat so transferred . . .

I think this section gives the governor in council a discretion which it might not be too happy to have. It would have to decide the time at which the transaction should take place. It would have to decide the price at which it would take place; and, whether or not there should be a transaction at all. It seems to me the producers themselves would be much happier if at the end of any one year pool it was mandatory that the transfer of the surplus remaining should be made. My suggestion would be within sixty days after July 31, at the end of any one year pool. I think that will have to be done in any case if the payments are to go out, as they should, shortly after the end of each one year pool period. I do not think our experience in relation to the "have regard to" clause has been too happy. I am not going back to it now, but it was loosely worded and left everyone a great deal of discretion. I do not think the experience of anyone with it was too happy. I am just wondering if the Minister of Trade and Commerce might accept an amendment such as I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort:
That clause 3 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "the governor in council may authorize the board to adjust its accounts at any time" and by substituting therefor the following words:	"The
board shall, not later than the 30th day of September in each year, adjust its accounts."
I think that should cover it. After each one year pool period the inventory would be sold to the following one year pool, so the payments could be made say not later than January 1 of the year following the conclusion of the crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry the government could not accept that amendment. Conditions might be such that the risk would be too great for the second pool to accept. My hon. friend realizes that the transfer of the accounts to the second pool means that the first pool is paid the value of that wheat by the second pool. If we had some accurate way of fixing the value of the wheat at that time, this amendment would be proper, and very often I think it will be possible to safely make the transfer by the date mentioned. This year, however, about half the crop oi a little more was feed grades of wheat. Whether that amount of feed grain would be reduced to manageable proportions by the end of September no one could be sure. If there should be a great quantity of feed wheat to be sold I do not think anyone would care to take the responsibility of putting a price on it and closing out the first pool, leaving the second pool to take all the risks of selling that wheat in the period of the second pool.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
The purpose of this amendment is to permit small lots of wheat to be cleaned up. I have in mind lots of wheat that really could not very much affect the payment of either pool. For instance, you might have a hundred bushels of No. 3 durum wheat left over, which is a difficult grain to sell. Nevertheless that grain must be sold under the present legislation before the pool can be closed out. In the five year pool substantially all the wheat had been sold by the end of September, but there were dribs and drabs left over that were not sold until well into December. Therefore the final payment on that five year pool was delayed several months for no particular financial reason.


Hazen Robert Argue: This amendment would permit the governor in council to set the price of wheat for the carry-over and they could take into account any conditions that had prevailed during the preceding year in relation to feed wheat or anything else. The minister's explanation shows, I think, that this amendment really does not mean very much, if it is only to allow the board to clean up a few hundred bushels of durum wheat or other almost negligible quantities in order to make the final settlement. We shall continue in future to be in the position we sometimes have been in the past, with the farmer not knowing when or on what basis a final settlement will be made. I thought this amendment was intended to take care of this huge quantity of frozen wheat the board now has on hand. If it is not intended to handle a hundred million bushels of wheat, or any quantity of that nature, then the wheat board may have a carry-over of this frozen wheat for two years or even longer. Certainly the western producers will not be satisfied to have the final payment on this year's crop dangling before them for another year or another two years or another four years, with the governor in council having discretion to turn it into another pool period and play around with the wheat in that respect. If the minister cannot accept our amendment I am afraid that will be the end of it, but certainly the explanation by the minister will not meet the objections of the western producers against the final settlement of any one year pool being extended for a long period of time after that pool comes to an end.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee
ready for the question?


Percy Ellis Wright: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
Private Bills AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Antonio Romeo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of James Edward Thomas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Mary Louise Webster Hunt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Marie Blanche Amilda Lessard Duplessis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Anne Fineman Segal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Ida Weinstein Yaphe.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Shirley Titleman Rodin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Yvette Ernestine Gagnon Lyons.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Rose Pakidailo Greenberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Dragon Bigaouette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Olive Marguerite Cann Nichol.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Laing for the second reading of Bill No. 115, to incorporate Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to detain the house long in connection with this bill, but I wish to say a few words in support of it because of its great importance to the people and to the economy of British Columbia.
All members of this house and, I think, most people in the country realize that the party to which I belong favours public ownership of transportation, communications, and things of this type particularly. When the bill was under discussion on Tuesday, March 6, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) dealt at some length with our policy in that connection and moved the following amendment:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion that consideration should be given to the construction and operation of pipe lines by a crown corporation, or by a public agency owned and controlled by the government of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: That motion was put to the
house and, I believe, declared lost. I am not sure whether there was a vote.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, it was declared lost and it is not debatable.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
if I am out of order; but I just wanted to mention the fact in order to re-emphasize our position in this connection. The motion was lost by a vote of 172 to 12, so we in this party realize that at this time there is not among the members of this house support for the principle of public ownership with respect to oil or gas pipe lines. Realizing that fact, Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the principle of the bill because we believe that the building of this oil pipe line will be of great advantage to the people of British Columbia, to the economy of British Columbia and to Canada as a whole.
Before proceeding with my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), on the detailed information he gave the house on the motion for second reading of this bill. I have sat in this house and heard bills of this type introduced on second reading, when the sponsors gave an extremely sketchy account of the purpose and the intentions of the bill. I am of the opinion that the attitude of some members, such as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), in requiring fuller explanation, has caused members introducing pipe line bills to realize that hon. members are not going to be satisfied with just a sketchy introduction. I forgot to mention the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), but I include him at this time and also the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair).


Edmund Davie Fulton: He was a late convert.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must say that we appreciated the information given to the house on the motion for second reading. The hon. member for Vancouver South told us the exact location of the route-that has not happened on another occasion-namely, from Edmonton to Vancouver through the Yellow-head pass. He gave us information as to the capacity of the pipe. He gave us the history and record of the company. He gave us information as to the use of Canadian

personnel in construction and in maintenance, and as to the use of Canadian materials. He gave us information as to the potential markets. He also gave us a great deal of other useful information which we have had the opportunity to reread before this bill came before us for debate again this evening. We appreciate this procedure, and we hope it is a practice which will be followed by other members introducing bills of this type.
I was pleased indeed, Mr. Speaker, to note that the hon. member stressed the fact that this was an all-Canadian route. After my recollections of the debate on pipe lines last year, I am pleased indeed to see the hon. member for Vancouver South standing shoulder to shoulder in this house with that delightful, irrepressible and indefatigable gentleman, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, to fight for an all-Canadian route for gas pipe lines and for oil pipe lines. I think the house and the country owe the hon. member for Fraser Valley particularly a debt of gratitude for focusing public attention, in his own unique and, shall I say, inimitable manner, on a matter of great importance. I trust that when this oil pipe line is constructed from Edmonton to Vancouver, a gas pump will be erected in Chilliwack to commemorate his efforts in this respect.
We are delighted to know that this is the second bill that has come before the house this session in which the sponsor says the main line of the gas or oil concern will follow an all-Canadian route; because that means a great deal to British Columbia in this case and to Canada in general. It means the use of Canadian resources by Canadians first. It means the use of Canadian materials in construction and in maintenance. It means employment for Canadians. It means permanent tax revenue for the provincial government and for the federal government. The construction of this oil pipe line will mean a great deal to the further development of British Columbia and that development will be to the general advantage of Canada. I hope that the bill passes this evening and goes to a committee so that we can hear the rest of what appears to us to be a most interesting story in connection with the further development of our great province, British Columbia.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the months that we have listened to these pipe line bills, I have more or less viewed the operations with a jaundiced eye because I thought that not only were politics involved but that a great deal of money was behind the people who were seeking incorporation. I did not view with much favour at the last session the efforts of some people
16,	1951
Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line to tell us that an all-Canadian route could be constructed. I want to tell the house tonight that I have now found that I am wrong. I am wrong for one reason. I am still not convinced that it will be financially successful for the pipe line to be built through the Yellowhead route; but after listening to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) the other night I came to the conclusion that he had a good story to tell, and I congratulate him on telling that story. Not only that, but there is some confirmation of the introduction that he gave to this bill.
Since he talked in the house the British American Oil Company have decided to build a $10 million oil refinery in my constituency of Burnaby. That means a tremendous amount to me and to the people of my riding. We are not an industrial riding; we are a dormitory municipality. W depend on the city of Vancouver for most of our pay cheques. Here is an opportunity that I have to get behind something that is really good for my people, and after listening to the hon. member for Vancouver South the other night I will tell you now, sir, that I intend to support this bill with all the endeavour that I can put at my command.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Apple-whaite for the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: As
usual, Mr. Speaker, I am to be assisted in a minor way by a lesser light from my own province.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: That will hold him.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Because of what happened tonight, Mr. Speaker, in connection with another bill, I would suggest through you to hon. members that they come earlier on Tuesday night to get a good seat to hear the excellent reason why the preceding bill received the excellent reception it did. I have myself prepared one or two things to say on that occasion, and I assure you that there will be other hon. members from he province of British Columbia who will endeavour to gain converts, as we have done in the past year.
I said the other night, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this bill, that I am in favour of the increased capital asked for by the company but not to the extent called for in the bill. One reason why I am not in favour
1340	HOUSE OF
British Columbia Telephone Company of the increase asked for is that some years ago when this company applied for an increase we asked for certain information. I well remember the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) who was then the hon. member for Vancouver South asking for and receiving the dear guarantee from the telephone company that no increase in rates would be asked for because of the increase in capitalization. We have now found that that was not true. Two increases have been asked for within one year by the telephone company and have been granted by the board of transport commissioners. No doubt other speakers from the city of Vancouver will go into detail and give some of the reasons why that city does not think the capital should be increased to the extent asked for by the sponsor.
I am not from the city of Vancouver, but my district is particularly interested in the lack of service, poor service and lack of additional telephone connections that exist. We dispute definitely the statement made, I believe by the sponsor, although I am not sure of that, but certainly by the representatives of the company, that it has not been able to improve the service or extend it because of the lack of capital. In other words, the reason they are asking for this immense increase is to increase their services, give better connections and better service.
In order that that argument may be answered right now let me point out to you that at the time they put in their application they had the privilege of increasing their capital by $5 million under the last increase they asked for here. They still had $5 million left. The city of Vancouver has gone to a great deal of trouble in this connection. Naturally they should. They represent by far the largest portion of the population of the province of British Columbia.
If you remember, sir, I mentioned the other night that this is one of the finest companies we have. They have an excellent management. If that management were allowed to manage the affairs of the company I do not believe that we would have the poor service we now have nor would they require the immense increase in capital that is being asked for. If these Canadians in Vancouver were allowed to manage the company none of these things would be necessary, but the most amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the management in Vancouver cannot run their company. I want to qualify that to this extent. I believe they are still allowed to hire a janitor or fire a gardener on some of the lawns in front of their offices without consulting their parent company in Montreal. If they want to hire somebody higher up
[Mr. Cruickshank.i

than the janitor apparently they would have to consult the parent company in Montreal.
They have a licence contract, Mr. Speaker, which provides for an annual payment by the B.C. Telephone Company of 1 per cent of its gross operating revenues to the parent company, the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company of Montreal. This Montreal company is a holding company and through its ownership of common stock controls the following companies operating in British Columbia: British Columbia Telephone Company; Canadian (B.C.) Telephone and Supplies Limited; Dominion Directory Company Limited; Chilliwack Telephones Limited; Kootenay Telephone Company, Limited; Mission Telephone Company Limited and NorthWest Telephone Company.
Probably one reason why I am particularly interested in these companies is that the Chilliwack Telephones Limited and the Mission Telephone Company Limited happened to go through the finest riding of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Where is that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: 
Mr. Sinclair:: Louder.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My colleague who sits to my left, the junior member from Coast-Capilano, says "louder". I would presume that he would get up, in due course and, without the aid of the new microphones we are to have in the chamber, would succeed in making his voice heard in every corner of the chamber in defence of the rights of his province, and on behalf of the people in his riding who unfortunately have to pay exorbitant rates for their telephone service. If my voice does not carry to the far corners of the chamber, we will hear from that great exponent, no doubt, that the service is needed for the people of Vancouver. I have no doubt the hon. member for Coast-Capi-lano, assisted by his colleagues from greater Vancouver, will endeavour to prove, as I am attempting to do, that this capital should not be increased to the exorbitant amount of $75 million. Perhaps that is wishful thinking. However perhaps some of my junior colleagues will do as they did eventually last year in connection with another matter which affected British Columbia; perhaps they will get on the bandwagon.
I do not want to take up too much time of the house. I am making no attempt to stage a filibuster on this telephone bill; I hope it goes through tonight. However I would feel derelict in my duty to the people I represent if I failed to object to this request for what I consider to be an excessive increase in capitalization.
16, 1951	1341
British Columbia Telephone Company
I said the other night, and I now repeat, that 1 believe they should have some increase in capital, but not to the extent of $50 million -and I am using their own figures. The sum I would hope might find favour-and I am not going to move an amendment at this time; I shall do so in committee-would be an extension by $20 million. This would be in addition to the $5 million they now have available. My reason for not moving at this time is exactly that indicated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) who in connection with another matter this afternoon said he was not sure he had a seconder. I notice that my seconder, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), is not in his seat at the moment-and I am not sure that any of my colleagues from British Columbia would second it. They might want $50 million.
The figures given by the experts from the city of Vancouver would permit an expenditure of $10 million a year, and thus enable the company to carry on for from six to ten years, through an increase in their capitalization of $20 million. At the end of that time they couldi come back to the house and ask for more.
Unlike the Bell Telephone Company and other telephone companies in Canada, the B.C. Telephone Company must appear before the board of transport commissioners in the matter of rates. Our public utilities commissioner has no control in the matter. The only weapon the people of British Columbia have, in so far as rates are concerned, is through the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners. I believe, and I know the people of my riding believe-and I have every reason to think that the people of Vancouver hold the same view, if one may judge by the very excellent brief prepared by experts- that this company could come back in eight or ten years to the board of transport commissioners and ask for a further increase, if at that time it is justified, and I presume it would1 be.
The only thing that would bother them at all-and it should not bather them too much -would be this expenditure of a few thousand dollars. I can show that they have paid $181,000 to one company and $3,000 to another company to get the information. The fact that they have to pay another firm of Vancouver lawyers a few thousand dollars to prepare another brief would not bother them too much in eight or ten years time. As a matter of fact, I am very fond of the lawyer in Vancouver who now represents the company, and I would hope that in eight or ten years from now he may get another fee.


James Sinclair: The people have to pay for it.

British Columbia Telephone Company


George Alexander Cruickshank: As my hon. friend points out, the people have to pay for it. I defy challenge of the figures I have given., and I make the statement that if this were carried through by a subsidiary company the people of British Columbia would be faced with another increase in rates, because the B.C. Telephone Company could lease their present building from another company. The men and women out there employed by them are of a most excellent type and, despite limited facilities, give an excellent service in some cases.


James Sinclair: Intelligent voters; I can see that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My hon. friend says he can see they are intelligent voters. I agree with him-and I express the opinion that they are so intelligent that my hon. friend may feel himself fortunate that he is in the riding he now represents, and not my riding.


James Sinclair: Do you mean there are none there?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not worried about that And I can tell my hon. friend, too, that in the Fraser valley exchange we have the best looking girls in the telephone service to be found in any telephone exchange in Canada-and that includes Montreal, too.


James Sinclair: The voice of experience.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Have you been all around?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have not been all around, but I have covered as much territory as I could. I know of course that my hon. friends are trying to get me into shape so that I may speak again on Tuesday night- and, by the way, be here early next Tuesday night if you want to get a seat.
And, on top of that, keep in mind that, as an amateur from a country district, I in company with the then hon. member for Vancouver South-now the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green)-and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) fought this battle on two former occasions. I would ask hon. members to check through Hansard to find the support we got from the lower mainland or, in fact, from any other quarters, in trying to maintain and regulate telephone rates in British Columbia.
Of course hon. members from greater Vancouver have before them exactly the same brief that I have, prepared by experts. I am sure that with their immense ability, their superior knowledge, their super-desire to serve the people of their districts and of the province, when I take my seat they will be clamouring to speak. I can visualize, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty you will have in deciding which of them you will recognize as

having the floor. Who, among the greater Vancouver members, will be on his feet to take over where I leave off in an endeavour -and I hope the Vancouver papers will carry this-in an endeavour to put before the house the reasons why we should not allow an increase to the extent asked in the present bill? Who among them will ask for this limitation, and the granting only of sufficient money-perhaps $20 million by way of increase-to allow them to carry on? They claim this is necessary in order to produce the service required under the officials they have in Vancouver. This will be used to sustain-I was going to use a word I probably should npt use as it might be offensive to these gentlemen in Montreal-I was going to say this phony company, this fictitious company, but I will just say this unnecessary company, the parent they have in Montreal which receives $181,000 for $3,100 worth of experience and advice. That advice is so poorly thought of that the income tax people would not let them deduct it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I know the hon. member desires to be fair. I ask him if it is not a fact that the decision of the income tax department in connection with that contract was made before the contract was ruled upon by a judicial body and decided to be legitimate.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If that is correct, I am glad to know it. I hope that this coming year the income tax people will reverse their decision and not permit the people of British Columbia to be milked for $181,000 for $3,100 worth of services. I am glad to have it on the record if that is a fact. That is just one more thing the board of transport commissioners should consider and render a decision upon.
I intended to move an amendment when the bill was in committee, but as I mentioned my seconder is not in the house. I have not had time to confer with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni or anyone else, but I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni:
That section 6, clause 1, of Bill E be amended by striking out all the words on the eleventh line after "exceed" and the following words added, "thirty-five million dollars."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Out of order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I believe I am allowed to say one word after having moved the amendment. I would assume that any decision as to the amendment being in order or out of order will be made by Your Honour rather than by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would draw to your attention that we are dealing with the motion for the second reading of the bill and in my submission an amendment to one of the sections is out of order and should not be placed before the house when it is considering the principle of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, while you are considering that question I think it might have some bearing if the house were to know whether the seconder of the amendment had had an opportunity to see it before he seconded it. From the sudden change indicated by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) it would seem quite certain that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) has not seen the amendment which he seconded. Perhaps he would change his mind if he had an opportunity to see it.


John Lambert Gibson: I am delighted that the hon. member for Kamloops has seen fit to advise me in this matter, but I can assure you that I am quite pleased to second the amendment and I know all about It.


Mr. Speaker:: I had hoped that a number of hon. members would have expressed opinions as to whether this amendment is in order. Does any other hon. member desire to speak on the point of order? Without doubt the view expressed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) is correct. When we are considering the principle of a bill it is not in order to move an amendment to one of the sections. Accordingly I shall have to rule the amendment out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I believe the house is in debt to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) for the able way in which he has presented the motion for second reading and for the information he has given us while speaking in support of his motion. There are a number of questions-in saying this I do not take away from the sincerity of my first words- which I think we are entitled to ask in order that we may have further details before the motion for second reading is decided upon. I should like to deal with some of these tonight and to place certain considerations before the hon. member which we would appreciate having him deal with when he replies.
Then the hon. tnember for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) raised a point in connection with the increase in capital which the company is asking for. As I see it, this bill divides itself conveniently into two objectives. The first is to obtain authority from this house to increase the share value by $50 million, from $25 million to $75 million. The
British Columbia Telephone Company second is to ask this house to amend the incorporating act to permit a reorganization of the capital structure, a subdivision of the common shares and also a subdivision of the preference shares, with certain other incidental consequences.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley has raised a point in connection with the first of these two objectives, that is, the increase in the capital which is requested. I think that point is one about which we should hear more from the hon. member for Skeena. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley has correctly pointed out, this increase of $50 million in the share capital would not only have the effect of allowing the company to increase its working capital by $50 million- I hope the hon. member for Skeena will correct me if I am wrong-but I understand the practice of the company is to finance its operation with approximately 50 per cent of share capital and 50 per cent of bonds.
If they obtain authority to issue and in fact do issue another $50 million of shares, as those shares were issued and in accordance with their normal practice they could float bond issues of approximately the same value. Possibly they might not issue all the $50 million of shares at once; they would perhaps issue $10 million and about the same time they would normally float a bond issue of the same value. According to their method of financing, if this $50 million increase is granted it would mean that this company could avail itself of $100 million additional working capital through the issue of shares and the floating of bonds.
The point has been raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley that such a large increase in capital would enable the company to carry on for a great length of time without the necessity of coming back to this house. I think that point is well taken. It is of increasing seriousness in the light of the ordinary practice of this company with respect to financing. I am making no suggestion that that is an improper method of financing. I am merely drawing to the attention of the house that that is the normal practice followed by this company and I understand that they do not intend to depart from that practice. So I ask the house to have it in mind that this bill may have an over-all effect of giving this company another $100 million to go on with. I think the house should consider that in the light of the point raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley with respect to the rate of increases, with respect to the fact that the only time when parliament at any rate has a chance to express its opinion concerning the operations of this company is when it comes before parliament for an
1344	HOUSE OF COMMONS
British Columbia Telephone Company increase in capital, and also in the light of the fact that the city of Vancouver has presented a very well reasoned and excellent brief questioning the propriety of granting this large amount of increase of $50 million.
I think there is no doubt that the company requires additional capital. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) has told us of some of the plans of the company. He has told us of the great backlog of applications for additional telephones which the company has on its files. The majority of members from British Columbia have had the opportunity of interviewing the solicitor who is acting for the company in connection with this bill. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Fraser Valley said about him as to his qualifications and integrity. I am not so certain that I necessarily wish to see him get another fee because he comes back to parliament. I think from what I know of his business that he does not require it to be able to conduct a very successful and prominent business.
Members have had an opportunity to see him, and he has -made a very good case indeed for an increase in capital. I do not feel, however, without further consideration, that he has substantiated a case for an increase of $50 million at this time which would have the effect of giving them another $100 million working capital, and which would in turn have the effect that until that capital was exhausted they would not have to come back to parliament for a review of their operations. It might well be that in the eyes of the company that would not be a bad thing. I can imagine that they are not anxious to come before parliament. One hears the suggestion occasionally that these bills are held up. I am quite sure that this measure, whether amended or not, will be considered and dealt with at this session. I do not think it does the company any harm, and I think it is an opportunity which parliament should have to keep the bill before it for several days so that the matter may be thoroughly considered, because the interests of the province of British Columbia are certainly bound up in this question.
At the moment I do not propose to express myself definitely against the increase of $50 million. I wish to hear more from those members who have studied the brief of the city of Vancouver, and I wish to have the opportunity of hearing further from the hon. member for Skeena before finally deciding on that point. But there is another point, Mr. Speaker, which I think should be drawn to the attention of the house, and it has to do with the second object of the bill, to effect a re-organization of the capital structure of the

company. What I wish to refer to particularly here is that portion of the bill which deals with preference shares. This company was incorporated as the Western Canada Telephone Company by an act of the federal house in 1916. I should pause here to interject that prior to that time it had been a company operating under a provincial charter from the province of British Columbia.
In 1916 it was decided by the directors that the scope of their operations was expanding and they desired to make connections with other telephone companies. As a matter of fact there were financial affiliations which took it outside the sphere of the province. It was decided to apply for incorporation by an act of this house and the works were declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. By section 5 of the statute, being chapter 66 of the statutes of 1916, it was provided:
The company, If previously authorized by resolution passed by the ordinary shareholders at any annual meeting or at any special general meeting duly called for that purpose, at which meeting shareholders representing at least three-fourths in value of the subscribed ordinary stock of the company are present or represented by proxy, may issue any portion of its capital, whether part of the original stock or any increase thereof as preference stock, and preference stock so issued shall have such preference and priority as respects dividends, capital or otherwise over ordinary stock or such qualified rights as is declared by such resolution.
Under the authority then obtained, and subsequent authorities, there was in fact issued $5 million of preference stock divided as of $500,000 original preference shares and $4,500,000 preference shares. These shares bear a fixed cumulative dividend of six per cent which represents, as hon. members will appreciate, what might very properly be described as a gilt-edged security. I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the house particularly to the , terms of subsection 2 of section 5 of the incorporating act to which I have already referred, which reads as follows:
Holders of preference shares shall not have any right of voting at meetings of the company except the right to attend and vote at general meetings on any question directly affecting any of the rights or privileges attached to such shares, and then there shall be one vote per share, but no change in the rights or privileges shall be made unless the holders of seventy-five per cent of the preference shares agree to same, and such shares shall not qualify any person to be a director of the eompany.
These shares were issued with a value of $100, and each share entitles the holder to one vote per share. No change in the rights of the preference shareholders can be made without the consent of seventy-five per cent of such shareholders. Subsection 2 of section 5 of the act of 1916 was subsequently changed

by chapter 36 of the statutes of 1940-41. I might say at this point that in 1940 a former hon. member from Vancouver, the late Senator McGeer, and also at one time mayor of Vancouver for a considerable period, introduced a bill which had the effect of increasing the capital of the company and altering the structure with regard to preference shares. The effect of the alteration with regard to preference shares would have been to interfere seriously with their preferred position, and to provide that their rights might be taken away, in a manner of speaking, without their full consent.
That point was raised and was debated at some length in this house at that time. The result was that the sponsor of the bill, after consultation with the critics, introduced an amendment to his own bill which had a much less drastic effect on the rights of the preference shareholders. That is now incorporated as section 1 of chapter 36 of the statutes of 1940-41. It has the effect of amending subsection 2 of section 5 of the original act so that it now reads as follows:
Holders of preference shares shall not have any right of voting at meetings of the company except the right to attend and vote at general meetings on any question directly affecting any of the rights or privileges attached to such shares, and' then there shall be one vote per share, but no change in the rights or privileges shall be made unless the holders of seventy-five per centum of the preference shares agree to same, and ownership of ordinary or preference or preferred shares shall qualify any person to be a director of the company.
I think it is important to note that the only effect of the change in that portion of the act dealing with preference shares was to provide that the ownership of such shares qualified the holder to be a director of the company. So the bill introduced in 1941 in effect was abandoned with respect to that part affecting the rights of the preference shareholders, and the only change made was that the holding of preference shares would qualify a person to be a director. In the bill now before the house it is stated that the only change proposed to this section of the existing act dealing with preference shares consists of the addition of the words "in par value" and "issued and outstanding" in one portion of the act. Then a new portion is added, and in the explanatory note it is explained as follows:
Subsection four of section five is a new subsection and its purpose is to provide that future preference or preferred shares may be of a par value of either twenty-five dollars or one hundred dollars each.
The reason for the amendment is that shares of the lower par value, namely, twenty-five dollars, may be more easily and conveniently marketed.
So far I have no objection or criticism to offer; I think it is perfectly proper to provide
16,	1951	1345
British Columbia Telephone Company that in future shares may be issued, either common or preference, of the pax value of $25, because they are easier to market. But at this point I make the reservation that if those shares are to be issued and if it is to be provided, as it is, that the holding of one share shall confer one vote, then I think we must insert a safeguard at this point for the rights of the present holders of preference shares of $100 each, which also carry one vote. Otherwise we will have this position, that preference shares of the value of $25 may be issued each carrying one vote, so the holder of $100 worth of new preference shares will have four votes as against the one vote of the holder of an old preference share of $100.
My objection to this portion of the bill is that there is no safeguard for the rights of the old preference shareholders. The bill provides that the directors can subdivide the outstanding preference shares into shares of $25 each, subject always to the consent of at least 75 per cent in par value of the holders of each class of such preference or preferred shares proposed to be subdivided. The important point there is that the directors may do that, subject to the consent of the present preference shareholders, but there is nothing to compel the directors to do it, and nothing saying that until it is done the holders of the old preference shares shall have four votes.
So this situation might well arise. Let us say there are presently $5 million of preference shares outstanding. If the company is authorized to issue $50 million of new capital it might decide that $5 million of that capital should be in the form of preference shares, and that those will not be $100 shares but $25 shares. The result will be that you will have four times as many preference shareholders and four times as many votes, because each $25 share is going to carry one vote. So with the new $5 million in preference shares you will have four times as many votes as with the old; and there is nothing to provide that the holders of the old preference shares shall be entitled to four votes per share as soon as new preference shares of $25 are issued. So under the provisions of this bill as it now stands and as I read it, it is quite possible to issue new preference shares of no greater par value than the present outstanding preference shares and yet completely swamp the voting powers of the present holders of preference shares by four to one; and I have already pointed out that the six per cent cumulative dividend rate attached to these preference shares makes them a gilt-edged security.
1346	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I am not attributing any improper motives to this company, but I do want to make the position clear. If this or any company, let us say, desired to make some change in the guaranteed rights of the preference shareholders while preserving the appearance of impartiality by issuing new preference shares with one vote per share and providing that the old preference shares might be subdivided to give them the same voting privileges, yet wished to use that in order to take away the rights of the old preference shares, this would afford a very convenient way of doing it. Preference shares could be issued before the old ones were subdivided, before they were given any greater voting power, so that while the par value would be the same the new preference share would have four times the voting power. I do not know who are the preference shareholders. I do not care who they are. The point I want to lay before this house before I conclude is that under our system of corporate and private law, established rights can only be taken away with the consent of the persons who have those rights. I may point out that shares of this type are particularly attractive to small investors, people with small estates, widows who desire a safe investment with a reasonable return; and I do not think this house should permit anything of this sort to happen without writing into the bill a provision which would safeguard the rights of the present preference shareholders.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for public and private bills having expired, the house will revert to the business under consideration at six o'clock.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935-Mr. Howe-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Louis-René Beaudoin: When the committee adjourned1 at six o'clock we were considering section 3, and the amendment that had been moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
On section 3-Transfer of wheat from one pool period to subsequent pool period.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman, the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce just before the dinner recess certainly came as a surprise to me. I thought under this amendment the government had intended at the end of this crop year, for instance, to take over what remained of the low grades, to be able to close out this year's pool and make the


final payment some time this fall. According to his statement before recess, he indicated that it was simply to clean up tag ends of certain grades or certain types of grades that might be said to be dribs and drabs of separate grades or separate varieties of grades being handled, without making any general clean-up of the pool itself. I do not think that is what the farmer in western Canada expects out of this legislation. He would prefer to see the pool cleaned up each year. As the minister says, that involves a certain risk to the pool of the preceding year. But the government have the authority under the act to set the price at which they take it over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government would not take it over.


Percy Ellis Wright: No, the wheat board would take it over; and the government, through the wheat board, have the say as to the price at which the board will take it over and wind up the pool.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They would take it over at a price, and the price would be paid by the succeeding pool.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government would not enter into it and would not guarantee the price or anything of that sort.


Percy Ellis Wright: According to the act here, the government decides a reasonable price at which the board will take it over; so actually the government are responsible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Percy Ellis Wright: Well, they are not responsible; they are responsible for the instructions they give to the board as to what the action of the board will be in taking over that particular grade of grain or whatever is left in the pool. I do not want to be political in this thing, but if it is left as it is the government could possibly, under certain circumstances- if an election were coming say, next fall- say that the board will take over this remaining quantity of wheat that there may be there at a pretty fair price and a pretty substantial payment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is talking about just exactly what this bill will not do; and he knows it as well as I do.


Percy Ellis Wright: It allows the government to do that. That is why we are moving this amendment, so that we will know definitely that there shall be a certain procedure for it. I think it is protection for the government itself that a definite procedure should be followed, that at the end of two months the board shall clean up the pool. They can

protect the pool in the following year by the price at which they take this over. Let me put it this way. They have a very good idea on July 31 as to what the crop is. They know practically what the crop is for the present year. They know pretty well what the world situation is. The board is therefore not running any very great risk of saddling the pool for the following year with a loss, when they know the market conditions and know the crop prospects at July 31. It is not as though they had to make the decision three months before. They have two months after the end of the crop year before they need to make a decision under the amendment as we have offered it. I think it would be more satisfactory both to the government and to the producers if the amendment were accepted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not the purpose of this amendment to involve the government in any liability whatever. There is a job to be done there that should not cost anyone anything. It is simply to stop the long-drawn-out process of selling the remnants of all grades of grain that must be sold under the present legislation. I mentioned a few hundred bushels; it might be a few million bushels. If everyone was agreed on a price that would represent equity to both parties, the government would not hesitate to enter into that sort of a transaction. But it would want to be sure that no responsible farm body considered the price out of line. If I were minister in charge of selling wheat at that time, I certainly would not recommend to the government any transaction if there was any opposition whatever to it; because the purpose of this amendment is not to involve the government in any dispute such as the one we have had in this house in the last few days. Life is too short. I know that my hon. friends may think that a contract is good when it is made, but that does not stop them from being bitter opponents of it if it does not work out in the way they think it is going to. They always judge by results, exemplifying the great power of hindsight. The government has no intention of becoming involved in any dispute of that kind as a result of this amendment. But we think it desirable to make it possible to expedite the settlement of each annual pool.


James Arthur Ross: I am sorry that I was called out of the chamber just before this discussion began, but I should like to know from the minister if, in winding up this year's pool, the intention is to make an initial payment and then, as the balance of the crop is disposed of, to clear it up? Is that the idea that the minister has in mind?
Canadian Wheat Board Act Mr. Howe: No. The pattern that we are following today is an initial payment, one interim payment and a final payment. The purpose of this amendment is to allow remnants of the various grades that often take time to liquidate, and which do not mean a great deal in dollars and cents to either pool, to be transferred from the current pool into the succeeding pool. As I said, it is not intended that the transactions will be large enough to involve any great risk of loss to either pool. But by the middle of September the wheat board would have a fair idea of the market conditions that would prevail during the few months that would be required to sell the wheat remaining from the old pool. If the responsible farm groups, such as the pools and the United Grain Growers, would decide that an equitable price could be arrived at, and the board could advise the government that such and such a price would meet with general approval, the government would then transfer the remaining wheat from the pool that terminated the previous July into the pool that was then current and allow the old pool to be wound up.


James Arthur Ross: There would not be any other price basis than there was for that year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price basis would be the basis on which the board believed that the remaining wheat could be reasonably liquidated.


Hazen Robert Argue: From the minister's statement, I do not see that this amendment is going to accomplish what, according to the explanation given on the opposite page of the bill itself, is stated as the purpose. The explanatory note reads in part as follows:
Its purpose is to allow an early distribution after the end of a pool period of moneys payable under certificates issued to persons who have sold and delivered wheat to the board in that pool period.
It does not guarantee that that will be done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Hazen Robert Argue: It does not guarantee that at
all. If all the minister is talking about is dribs and drabs, a few hundred bushels, a few thousand bushels, even a few million bushels-a few odds and ends-when the amendment is passed it will allow the government-even although the minister may make the statement that they would not do it without consultation with the farm organizations-to get into the same kind of situation on account of this amendment as the government got into with respect to the wheat agreement. Even though the farmers of Canada feel that $100 million or more was involved in that "have regard to" clause, the
1348	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act farm organizations were not consulted. The minister says tonight that the farm organizations will be consulted. We have his word for that, nothing more. But the bill, as it is drawn, will allow the cabinet to set the price as it sees fit for a carry-over and take it into another pool period any time it sees fit. If all that is meant by this amendment is that dribs and drabs can be sold at the end of the one-year pool	period-a few hundred
bushels, a few thousand bushels, or even a few million bushels-then the amendment should read to that effect. As the amendment is drawn, I can see no hope of the present pool period being wound up for many months after the end of the pool period on July 31 of this year. We have a lot of feed wheat. The minister has told us that it is going to be difficult to dispose of it. Does the minister intend that this amendment will be used, shall we say, sometime this year? Does the government intend to use this amendment to sell from the present pool period to next year's pool period the remaining stocks of feed wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That will depend entirely on
the view of the government as to the possibility of fixing a price on the remaining feed wheat that will represent neither a loss to the earlier pool nor a loss to the later pool. If there is a fairly stable market for feed wheat at the time, and a market that promises to absorb the balance of the wheat without any material change of price, then the transfer will probably be made, but the decision is entirely at the option of the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is fairly clear that it is
entirely at the option of the government whether it sells the wheat at a price that will help the Liberal party a few months before an election or not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think it will matter
very much to the hon. member whether it helps the Liberal party or not.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly why we object to this loosely worded amendment. It allows the government to do anything under the sun with the wheat board act. Our farmers want each pool period wound up immediately, or as soon as possible, after the end of each pool period; and our amendment asks that the wheat be sold by the 30th of September. If that were put in legislative form the farmers would have a guarantee that within a certain period the government could use its discretion admittedly to sell the carry-over, but it would not have the authority to let the carry-over at the end of one pool period drag on until just a few months before the elections when I have no doubt at all in my 

mind that if this government felt that by selling it at a high price to a current pool and paying out a large final payment on some previous pool period it would help the election they would not hesitate doing it for one moment.
If this amendment means dribs and drabs then it should say so in the amendment. If it means that the feed wheat remaining at the end of this year's pool will be sold and the farmers paid out within a reasonable length of time, it should say so.
If the government wants parliament to change the legislation at any time there is no difficulty about getting that done; but in the meantime we should not be asked to pass on such a loosely worded amendment that might be used against the interests of the wheat producers.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Minister of Trade and Commerce himself stated the other day that he objected to these loosely worded types of agreements, such as the "have regard to" clause. I am surprised at his bringing in a bill as loosely worded as this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you don't like the bill you can easily vote against it.


Percy Ellis Wright: We will certainly vote for our own amendment. It is to clarify the thing and to protect the government as well as the producers of western Canada that we ask the government to accept this amendment.


Mr. Hansell:: Just one word; I am in favour of this amendment by reason of the fact that experience in the west has long taught us that the farmer should have a little more definite knowledge of when he is to be paid for his wheat from time to time.
Before coming down this session and before Christmas, I was stopped many, many times on the streets of various villages and towns. I received numerous letters from people asking, when can we expect this payment? Nobody knew. Christmas was coming along. Several people came to see me complaining that they were afraid they would have to go to the banks or to the Alberta government treasury banks, or borrow money because they did not know when they were to be paid.
Various reports would come out from time to time to the effect that payment is expected now, payment is expected at a certain time. The ministers were asked. They attended conventions, and it was dribbling along, dribbling along, dribbling along. I am quite certain that the wheat board itself is not to blame. There is no reason why the wheat board, the same as any other concern, with a system of accountancy, cannot tell where the farmer stands periodically. I am in favour

of this. The hon. member who preceded me said that there was a tendency certainly for the government to play around with the wheat board act. Not only do they play around with the act, but they play around with the farmers' money. That is not right. I support the wheat board and the present system of marketing. I do not want to be misunderstood in what I am saying, but there was a time when the farmer could get his wheat to the elevators, sell it and get his grain checks and know where he stood. All other industries have a way of paying. Labour gets paid every couple of weeks or once a month. Even members of parliament know when they are to be paid and where they stand during the session. The whole country is run on a system of paying things at a certain time. But here we have the greatest industry in Canada in the position of not knowing how they are going to make out from one season to another season in the year.
The amendment is a good one and I can see no reason why the government would not agree with it.


Mr. Helme:: In regard to the matter under discussion, I do not think there is any doubt but that the farmer would like to get settled for his grain just as soon as it is sold. As I understand this amendment, it asks that it be cleaned up by the end of September. Let us take the 1950-51 crop as an example. We have quite a large quantity of very low grade wheat out there. It may take a considerable time to dispose of that wheat. In talking to farmers out there before the session opened I found that they were a little bit concerned about getting rid of that stuff. I think I speak for the majority to whom I talked about it when I say that they do not feel the government should be in any too big a hurry to dispose of this stuff at Are sale prices, and that is the danger in the amendment as I see it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The amendment is drawn in such a way as to avoid the fire sale of a carry-over of wheat. This amendment does not mean that if we have 100 million bushels or 50 million bushels of low grade wheat still in the present pool on July 31 the wheat board is required to dump that on the market at a fire sale price and to take anything they can get for it, no. This amendment says that if there are 50 million bushels of feed wheat remaining in the present pool period on July 31 then within sixty days thereafter the wheat board shall sell that carry-over from this year's pool to next year's pool at a price established by the governor in council.
We are not trying to set the price for it. The government will have to take into con-
Canadian Wheat Board Act sideration marketing conditions and all of the relative factors. But we are asking that that price be set within a sixty-day period, the transfer made and the farmer's money paid out to him.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I am not
going to offer an opinion on the merits, but I should like to draw attention to one thing. I took down a few moments ago what the minister said in answer to an argument put forward in what seemed a most reasonable manner by the hon. member for Melfort. He said, "If you don't like it, you can vote against it". What does he mean by that? He means, "I am not going to discuss the merits at all with you. We have a majority here, and we will vote it down".


Robert Fair: Mr. Chairman, without engaging in political discussions or considerations, as others seem to have done, in the interest of the farmers I should like to see the surplus of each pool carried over into the next pool, if it is possible to do that without getting into the mess we are in at the present time. It must be remembered that many farmers are still in debt and are paying interest on money which is being held over in wheat board funds, because the grain has not all been disposed of and settlement cannot be made until such is done.
If that can be worked out on a reasonable basis, and without endangering the financial position of the pool, or discriminating against the farmers of any particular pool, I should like very much to see it done. I believe such a system was carried out by the Alberta wheat pool in the early years of its operations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was to accomplish that that the bill was introduced. That is the purpose of it-to remove the difficulty of liquidating the pool quickly, under the present legislation.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 55.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read
the third time?


Alphonse Fournier: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of the bill.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is read a third time I should like to read an editorial. There appears to be a good deal of misunderstanding between rural and city people across the
1350

Canadian Wheat Board Act country. I have before me the September issue of Country Life, which is published in Vernon, British Columbia, by Country Life Limited. In this issue there is some sound advice I should like to place on record, in the hope that all parties concerned will take cognizance of it. It states:
Tonic Needed Badly
When an important farm group meets in a Canadian city, the businessmen, if given the opportunity, do not hesitate to declare that they are fully aware of the interdependence of business and agriculture and of the common and closely related interests of town and country. But they and the ordinary city folk are so immersed in their own affairs that outside perhaps of a few minutes every year, they forget about the farm families except to complain, without thinking and without knowledge of the facts, about the cost of food. Actually the main and essential foods in Canada are the cheapest commodities that are bought by consumers.
It would be profitable all around if city residents took time out once in a while and studied their relations with the farming community. Having done this, their sense of justice could go to work and1 lay the foundations for a better understanding.
A few plain truths, while perhaps not always welcome nor palatable, still provide a tonic that is badly needed in these confused days. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan told a conference of business leaders some of these truths, as applicable in the States and even more applicable in Canada.
For example, one-third of the products manufacturing industries in the United States would be crippled completely, if deprived of agriculture's raw materials.
One dollar in every four of the revenue of the nation's railways is derived from the transportation of agricultural products.
American farmers spend two billion dollars a year on automotive equipment, their operation and their upkeep to the advantage of the oil industry and the car, truck, tractor and farm automotive machinery manufacturers and distributors and their employees benefit accordingly.
Farm families of Canada are buyers of goods and services of every type and in normal life, their ability to buy, governs to a marked degree the presence or absence of prosperity in the cities and in the nation.
Farm folk, through their federation of agriculture, are striving to establish close and constructive relations with city folk but there have to be two parties to this understanding and the handicaps are tough and numerous. One such handicap is the long farm working season during which agriculturists have neither time nor energy to prosecute good-will movements. Another is the absence of common meeting grounds. A third is the ingrained lack of interest of urban Canadians.
One of the best sources of help would be the daily papers of the cities but there again, the pressure of local, provincial, national and international news and affairs crowds out agriculture.
It would be a healthy tonic for town and country if the editors could find time to pay a visit to the agricultural areas and get firsthand views and firsthand information. These editors are most knowledgeable observers and they could render a further service of incalculable value to their country.
In my constituency I believe we have co-operation between town and farm people, who have made an effort to understand each

other's problems. I am sorry that some of the newspapers right here in Ottawa have not seen fit to state the true picture, and in this way are creating mistrust and developing bad relationships.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting Indians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that in moving the second reading of this bill it will be necessary to refer from time to time to Bill No. 267, which was introduced last session and withdrawn in June. On the second reading of that bill I made a statement of government policy with respect to Indians. There is nothing that was said at that time that need be altered at the present time. In fact, I think I should begin by repeating what I said then was government policy, and I quote from page 3938 of Hansard of June 21, 1950:
The underlying principles of Indian legislation through the years have been protection and advancement of the Indian population. In the earlier period the main emphasis was on protection. But as the Indians become more self-reliant and capable of successfully adapting themselves to modern conditions, more emphasis is being laid on greater participation and responsibility by Indians in the conduct of their own affairs. Indeed, it may be said that ever since confederation the underlying purpose of Indian administration has been to prepare the Indians for full citizenship with the same rights and responsibilities as those enjoyed and accepted by other members of the community.
I went on to say that pursuant to that policy it was hoped that we could eventually provide for the integration of the Indian into our community life. Since then I have received many protests from Indians with respect to that statement because there were many who thought that integration was equivalent to assimilation. I want to make it quite clear that that is not the meaning of the word in any way; the word was used to indicate the status of having privileges, duties and responsibilities equal to those of other Canadians, and exercising them in the same manner that we do.
On the resolution stage of this bill I set out the procedure that we had followed after the bill was withdrawn last June. I said that we had written to every Indian and Indian organization and to every non-Indian and non-Indian organization who had communicated with us about the bill. We asked that they send their representations to us, and they did. Naturally those representations

varied and it was quite evident that Indian did not agree with Indian as to certain sections in the bill now before the house, neither did non-Indian agree with nonIndian. In other words, there was a normal division of opinion among the Indians and non-Indians with respect to Indian affairs.
I also indicated that we had decided to invite to Ottawa representative Indians in order to discuss this bill with them. That discussion occurred on February 28, March 1 and 2, and on March 3 we had a general discussion about Indian affairs as we completed the discussion of the bill on the day before. At a later stage I should like to put on the record the names of those who attended the conference.
It will be seen when the list is before hon. members that we had Indians from every area in Canada covered by treaty, and also from every other area in Canada where Indians live. As hon. members will see, the majority was quite conclusive with respect to the bill. Nevertheless I am obliged to say that there was some opposition to certain parts of the bill. In order that that information might be available to hon. members and in order that it should have the approval of the Indians before it was brought to this house, I drew up and read to the conference on the afternoon of March 2 the agreed conclusions with respect to this bill.
It will be interesting for the house to understand what those conclusions were. There are 124 sections in Bill No. 79. Of those 124 sections, two sections were unanimously opposed by the conference, four other sections were opposed by a majority of those present; there was some objection to 15 sections but the majority of the conference were in support while the remaining 103 sections were unanimously supported by the conference. To repeat, the four sections on which there was opposition from a majority were sections dealing with liquor provisions, so that in effect it can be said that there were only three matters mentioned in the bill which received opposition by a majority of the Indians at the conference.
I promised to draw the attention of the house to the proceedings at that conference and with the permission of the house I should like to do so. We drew up a record. I stated that we would put more detail in it and that copies would be sent to everyone present, and that I would also put it on the record as an appendix to Hansard. If I have the consent of the house I should like to do that now.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the consent of the house?
Indian Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of the proceedings of conference see appendix B, pages 1364-7.)


Walter Edward Harris: I have indicated that there was general desire on the part of the government to get opinions from both Indians and non-Indians with respect to this legislation, and we have gone to considerable trouble to do that. Before I proceed to discuss in some detail the matter before the house I might state that the Indians were most grateful that this conference had been arranged. It was the first of its kind and in many instances was the first occasion in which representative Indians from the west met representative Indians from the east. The fact that they disagreed among themselves only made the meeting more important. They exchanged views and they discovered what I shall mention later, that the Indian Act is all inclusive and has to cover Indians in all parts of Canada. They realized that that had to be borne in mind, particularly by those who saw something in the bill that might not be applicable to their particular band or district.
Perhaps I might make one general remark before I proceed to a consideration of the bill. The most important matter to the Indian is his treaty and his treaty rights. I have pointed out already to the house that not all Indians are treaty Indians; in fact, just over half are under treaty as the phrase is used. There are something like 69,000 Indians under treaty, with a few thousand less than that not under treaty.
These treaties are agreements which were negotiated by commissioners appointed for the purpose, particularly to obtain the surrender of the Indian interest in lands. There are twelve such treaties and they affect the lives and the property of Indians from roughly lake Simcoe in Ontario to the Rocky mountains. In that area, as I said, we have some 69,000 treaty Indians. The treaties all follow the same pattern, surrender of the Indian interest in land, payment for that surrender, and certain conditions. These treaties are not referred to in the bill except in some instances where it was deemed advisable to provide specifically that they would not be affected by that particular section. The house will understand, however, that these treaties do not provide in many cases for what it is alleged they do. Any member who served on the Indian affairs committee of 1946 to 1948 knows that there was a good deal of confusion in the minds of many witnesses before the committee as to what the treaties did in fact contain. We do not accept responsibility for that, although we are doing what we can to
1352

Indian Act
overcome the confusion. These treaties are in printed form and are available in all our offices in the area covered by particular treaty.
I should like now to mention the bill generally without offending the rule as to discussing sections. Bill 267, the bill of last year, was intended to be a revision of the Indian Act. It was the intention to provide the machinery for carrying out government policy with respect to Indians. It was not the policy itself, and this has led to some confusion about the bill. Many people have written expressing disappointment that matters that they thought were essential to the welfare of the Indian had not been included in the bill. I think I should give two examples at least. I received many letters from people saying: There is nothing whatever in the bill about old age pensions for Indians. Similarly there were many letters saying: You have not provided in the bill that, wherever possible, an Indian child should obtain the same standard of education that a non-Indian receives. The house will readily understand why those matters are not contained in the bill. Those are matters which are provided for in this house by votes in the estimates and not by legislation.
Then there were representations which indicated a lack of understanding about what the bill did contain, and I think I should give one example of that. We have a section in the bill which provides that the governor in council may exempt from the restrictive provisions in the bill any Indian or any band if it seems desirable to do so. This section was designed to relieve the Indian from what might appear to be restrictive provisions. Nevertheless we received protests with respect to this section indicating that the writers thought that the government would try to avoid its responsibility to the Indian, and that the section might be used to destroy treaties, as the phrase was used.
Similarly we had objections from the other side of the story, that the section was going to be used to give to the Indian powers and authority which he did not want, which in some cases he could not use, and these representations were made by Indians as well as by non-Indians. I do not remember who it was now but I recall one person saying something which I think is significant. He said that the Indian wanted to retain his present privileges but to have complete political freedom from the government. That is a definition of the problem which has to be solved in Indian affairs. The problem is to maintain the balance of administration of the Indian Act in such a way as to give selfdetermination and self-government as the

circumstances may warrant to all Indians in Canada, but that in the meantime we should have the legislative authority to afford any necessary protection and assistance.
Heretofore we have thought of enfranchisement as being the ultimate role of Indian policy, and let us say frankly that we rather expected that the Indian would want to become enfranchised in order to be like one of us. Nothing can be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. The Indian has no desire to become as one of us, and all his representations have said:	I hope you are not going
to take away from me the right to be an Indian. Of course there is no such intention. Except in rare cases the Indian has every intention to retain his connection with his reserve and with his band, and while he wants some of the advantages of our society he wants them on such terms that he can retain his old connections.
I think, sir, that our policy should be to extend self-government to all the reserves as soon as possible. It might be argued that this would give to band councils on the reserves greater powers than are now held and exercised by municipal authorities in our form of government, but if that would be the result surely we can impose safeguards to see that a band council does not exercise authority greater than a municipal council unless it is in the interests of the band. I think perhaps we can discuss that better in the committee stage.
This brings up other misunderstandings about the bill. Many people have written saying that they do not understand the difference between enfranchisement and voting at dominion elections. In fact I think one hon. member in this house during the debate last year showed that there was some doubt in his mind as to the difference between the two. Enfranchisement is the act whereby an Indian is released from the band, obtains the funds that are due to him and a small gratuity from the government, and goes out into the world on his own in nearly all cases. It has nothing whatever to do with voting at dominion elections as provided for by an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act last year. He now has the facilities for making his wishes known in this house by influencing the choice of the member who comes here from his particular riding.
One of the drawbacks to enfranchisement in the past has been that he could not do that without cutting himself off from his own band and his associations with his relatives and friends. It seems to me then that by providing the vote as we did we have begun a policy which will retain in the

Indian's hands all the benefits that he now enjoys by reason of being an Indian as well as giving to him, as I have said, the opportunity of influencing legislation in this house for his benefit.
I think I can see the time is not far distant when the administration of Indian affairs will be much better because in this house we will have a critical approach to the problem not just once every decade but every year, by persons representing the Indians. However, the word "enfranchisement", confusing though it may be, is difficult to replace. We could not find a substitute, so we have used the word again; and the procedure for enfranchisement is much the same in this bill as it was under the act. I want to repeat, however, that voting at dominion elections as provided a year ago has nothing whatever to do with enfranchisement; that voting at dominion elections under that amendment does not take from the Indian any of his treaty rights, though enfranchisement does.
This brings me to the question of councillors. In the bill we have provided that the election of councillors and chiefs on the reserves shall be by secret ballot. We think this should be the case. We think the Indian councils should take hold of the affairs of their bands and discharge their responsibilities, and that this can be done best by having them in the first instance chosen by the free and secret ballot of their people. Some representations were made that the Indians had not yet attained that standard of education in procedure and management which would make it possible for those duties to be performed; and it was suggested, you will see by the record of proceedings, that the term of office should be long so the chiefs and councillors might learn the procedure and methods of handling the money of their bands and dealing with property. For the same reasons it was also suggested that the term of office should be very short, and that we should pass as many people as possible through the offices, giving instructions as they went along. I do not think that is necessary. I think the term of office stated in the bill will be satisfactory.
One matter really counts to the Indian on the reserve; that is his property rights. There is no pattern of tenure of land for the Indian on his reserve. On some reserves they occupy lands by mutual consent. On other reserves there is an allotment by the band council, and in some cases there has been a succession of ownership passing through several generations. We feel this is not a satisfactory method for the holding of property, and that there should be some security to the individual Indians. We also feel that where an
Indian Act
Indian has had land allotted to him and has put improvements upon it, he should not be penalized upon enfranchisement. In the act at the moment there is a provision that an enfranchised Indian may live on his land on a reserve, or he may have complete ownership which would extend to selling the land. This has raised some concern that Indians might become enfranchised for the purpose of selling their land, so that eventually the reserve might be held by 'non-Indians. That has not been our experience. Very few of the Indians seeking enfranchisement have asked for the privilege of holding their land; but at the same time it must be admitted that many Indians feel enfranchisement should be a bar to any future relationship on the reserve. Others feel that Indians should be entitled to the same security of land tenure that is assured to the rest of us. But most of them agree at least that enfranchisement should not work out to the disadvantage of the Indian who has put a great deal of work and spent money on his land.
In this bill we have provided that upon enfranchisement the Indian may hold his land for a period of ten years. He may live on the land, and at the end of the ten-year period may have absolute ownership of it. That is a restriction compared with the present act, the only restriction I am prepared to admit; but it is done in that way in order to assure the band that there will not be a sale of land immediately upon enfranchisement. Let me say at once that we do not propose to use this in every case, and assuredly we would not use it if it would lead to any form of breaking up of the reserves or, in fact, to anything detrimental to band life.
Now just a word about the criticism which was directed to Bill No. 267 with respect to ministerial discretion. This bill does continue ministerial discretion, but I assure the house that this discretion is very much limited as compared with the present act; and in committee I am sure we will be prepared to defend such discretion as has been retained. In particular the minister is obliged to retain authority over the expenditure of band funds, for the very simple reason that these moneys are in the consolidated revenue fund and there must be some authority for their payment. I would not want to mislead the house. The ministerial authority does extend to supervision of expenditure of band funds, but I want to assure the house that just as soon as a band demonstrates its ability to handle money it will be given an opportunity of doing so.
I have not attempted to discuss many of the objections that were raised to Bill No.

Indian Act
267, but I think I should mention one objection raised by the leader of the C.C.F. and the hon. member for Lethbridge. Both these hon. members mentioned a claims commission and expressed disappointment that it was not provided for in the bill. There is no need for a claims commission in the bill, as far as having one is concerned1; we can provide for that also by a vote in the estimates. But I suggest to the house that there is no need for a claims commission in any event. Such a commission was established in the United States, but it was mainly concerned with a revision of the prices paid for land which had been surrendered by the Indians, in the midwestern states. In almost every case, if you will read the proceedings of the claims commission, it was alleged that the original surrender had been obtained by duress, or for lack of real value, or reasons of that kind. I think it is a matter of pride, sir, that no band of Indians in Canada has asserted that any original surrender was made under duress, or for lack of value, or under conditions similar to that. Under the circumstances we do not think that a claims commission is necessary for that particular purpose. Nevertheless a perusal of the Indian affairs committee proceedings of a few years ago will show that almost every Indian witness was of the opinion that his treaty rights had been abrogated or restricted in one form or another; and in particular, those who had treaty rights dealing with hunting and fishing.
In the province of Ontario it was alleged that, by the Robinson-Huron treaty, certain provisions were made for the Indians to hunt and fish in, roughly, the area north of lake Simcoe but that, by reason of the operation of the provincial game and fish laws, his treaty rights have been restricted. In the western provinces the suggestion is made that, by reason of the transfer of the natural resources to the provinces, the provinces have obtained the right-and are exercising it-of restricting game hunting and fishing in certain treaty areas. This argument-that is, the argument with respect to the western treaties- overlooks the fact that all those treaties provided for the regulation of these pursuits. On the other hand, it can be said that, by reason of conservation methods which are encouraged by this department, in co-operation with the provincial governments, the Indian has enjoyed distinct advantages with protection by having greater opportunities for trap lines, fishing rights and the like. Certainly the income of the Indians, particularly those in the western provinces, has been much greater as a result of these conservation methods. But the basic problem, whether confederation in the eastern provinces and the transfer of

the natural resources in the western provinces has actually resulted in an impairment of the treaty rights, is uppermost in the minds of the Indian at all times. There have been court decisions, and those court decisions have upheld the right of the Indian to hunt and to fish, in some cases, in what appears to be contradiction of the provincial game laws. In view of this fact and because we know that the Indian is reasonable, and because the Indian has expressed a wish to carry on within the law, we think that we should continue the policy of co-operation with the provincial governments in an effort to obtain the maximum conservation of game and fish, together with the continuing exercise of these rights granted to the Indian.
There is one other treaty right that the Indian asks and that is in connection with the matter of taxation. All Indians under treaty allege that they are exempt from taxation by reason of their treaty. There has been no court decision which says so. On the contrary, there have been court decisions which say otherwise. The point I want to make is thgt provision for tax exemption is contained in the Indian Act. That exemption which now exists is being continued in the present bill.
That brings me to the question which was raised in the house last June, one of civil rights, if you wish to put it that way, the right of an Indian to engage in lawsuits. The Indian may sue another Indian or a non-Indian or the government in precisely the same manner as a non-Indian may. In the bill there is nothing that alters the right he now has to do this. From the Indian's standpoint the difficulty is that his money is held in a common fund and he himself has no money, or at least very little, wherewith to finance lawsuits to assert his rights. We recognize that as a difficulty, so we have provided in this bill for greater authority of the band councils to use money for the benefit of the band and this may extend to legal expenses which they might incur for the purpose of asserting their rights. But I want it clearly understood by the house- and I do not think it was clearly understood, judging from the debate which took place last summer-that there is no restriction on the Indian with regard to bringing an action against the government for any right he thinks he may have had, or against any other person.
I notice that the speech from the throne suggests that there will be legislation removing the necessity for a petition of right; and that will apply to the Indian as well as to the non-Indian. I want to assure the house, however, that I am not looking forward to

a flood of lawsuits against the government, but I am saying this because among some Indians I met there seemed to be an opinion that they could not sue for their rights. I hope that if they think they have rights, they will take action in our courts to establish them, because our courts are set up for that purpose. I should think that the Indian would be better satisfied and that there would be equal justice if he took that course rather than that we should appoint a claims commission specifically to deal with his claims.
I want to mention briefly one part of the Indian Act which is not carried forward in this bill. In the present act there is a provision that the houses of parliament, by an elaborate procedure which is set out therein, might remove an Indian band from the reserve it is on to a newly established reserve, if the one on which they are living is adjacent to a city or municipality of over 8,000 population. The Indian has always felt that this was a reproach to him, that it indicated that he was a second-class citizen and that we did not like his standard of life.
I am sure there was no such thought at any time. But on looking at the section-and not only because of the opposition to it-we came to the conclusion that it was discriminatory and should have no place in the legislation of Canada. Consequently we have removed that provision and the Indian now is not subject to removal at the will of parliament from his present reserve for the purposes outlined in that section. We did that because the Indian is just as good a citizen as you and I. He may not live as we do; but I have heard many people say that he lives a happier life than you and I do. Certainly he has shown a remarkable adaptability. He is now overcoming some of the diseases which it is alleged we brought to him. But, at any rate, as a race, he is coming back. May I also add that he is getting wealthy too. We have in the consolidated revenue fund over $20 million of his money, including approximately $540,000 of personal savings. In discussing this bill it should be remembered that the Indian has pulled his weight in the two world wars. He is part of our community, in the more populated areas where he is part of a lively community he takes part in the community life, and he is indispensable to us.
I think we should frankly admit that in the past there have been shortcomings in the administration of Indian affairs; and in doing that we can only reassure the Indian by saying here that we are going to eliminate the shortcomings in the future.
Indian Act
There may be some legal problems to settle yet. There are one or two major issues outstanding in that connection. I might mention, for example, the Indians of British Columbia. They assert that by the terms of union whereby British Columbia came into confederation they were assured certain things which they interpret to mean no taxation on personal property. Whether that claim is justified or not is a matter of considerable moment to the thirty odd thousand Indians of British Columbia and because it is something in the nature of a constitutional issue, and certainly is based on a document which can be produced in court, we feel justified in assisting the Indian to come to a determination of this particular matter. We are making arrangements to see that that is done, and that the claim of the Indian is given every consideration by the competent court concerned.
I wish therefore, sir, to present the bill to the house and to ask the house to recognize that the Indian has arrived at that point, in many instances, where he not only can but should have control of his own affairs. We shall continue to give him that control as he demonstrates his ability to exercise it.
It may well be that the provincial governments can be most useful in aiding us in this respect, and it is a matter of interest that the legislature of the province of British Columbia has appointed a special committee to consider Indian affairs in that province. We are quite certain that the committee and its work will be beneficial to the Indian, and undoubtedly will be helpful to us in handling Indian affairs in that province.
The Indian is our brother, Mr. Speaker. He has been a faithful friend in time of need. Let us act as if he is.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting Indians, the minister has already gone over much of the history of the old bill, Bill No. 267, which was introduced last year by the government. At that time, as a matter of fact, on May 5 of last year, the statement was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself that, if there was any great dissension among the Indians over it, it would not be passed last year but would be held over for some time. As we all remember, Mr. Speaker, that was not just what happened. It was given first reading on June 7, and came up for second reading on June 21, just two weeks after it was given first reading in this house. As you, Mr. Speaker, can readily understand, and as all hon. members can understand, Indians are found all across this country, and it would be utterly impossible for them to receive

Indian Act
the bill, study it and get their recommendations or briefs in to this government in a matter of two weeks' time. Therefore the bill was withdrawn and is now brought back to us as Bill No. 79.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, there is very little change in this bill from the old Bill No. 267. I will admit that there are some good changes. I only hope that the bill is as good as the minister would have us believe it is.
I realize that on second reading it is the principle of a bill that is discussed; therefore I shall not mention any particular clauses but I do want to go over some points that are of particular interest to me, and something that the minister has just said.
Treaty rights, as the minister said, are very important to the Indians. They feel that these treaty rights should mean something. They were treaties made with the crown, and they feel that this government should uphold their portion of the treaty.
As the minister said, the Indians have fought in two wars, and were our allies in affairs before that. The minister mentioned something about taxes. Contrary to the opinion of most people in the House of Commons, and many people outside the house, the Indians do pay practically all the taxes that the white man pays, with the exception of land taxes on their property on the reservation and on income earned on the reservation. He is not subject to those taxes, but he does pay all other taxes. He pays the gasoline tax; he pays excise taxes on any articles he buys, just the same as any other person does.
The minister also mentioned the fact that the Indian was now given the chance to vote. I will grant that, Mr. Speaker. But what does he have to give up for the opportunity to vote? It is not just as easy as it is imagined by many people. He has to sign a waiver of rights of exemption from income tax. That in itself makes the Indian suspicious. He does not understand just what he is signing in many instances, and he thinks he is signing something away that is a right of his, and he should not have to do it to get the vote. It seems by some strange quirk-and the minister mentioned it tonight also-that this government thinks the Indian should be made a citizen of this country. Probably the minister is doing some crystal gazing. He admitted tonight he was wrong, of course. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Indian was the first citizen of this country. He has a better right to citizenship than anybody else in this country. We stole their land from them, moved them on to reservations and told them that they were wards of the state. Now we come along with this bill 
and say to them: We took your freedom a few years ago; now we are going to take your home. That is the point that I am going to try to bring out. Under this bill that is the right of the governor in council. They get that right under the assisting legislation that is put forward in Bill No. 79.
I have always maintained that where there are Indians of equal ability they should be given the preference in any positions on reserves or in the administration' of the department. It is only recently that consideration has been given to this matter, and I am happy to say that in the case of the Six Nations reservation at Brantford all of the teachers on that reserve are now Indian teachers. I am sure the minister can tell us how many Indians there are in the administration of the department, and we shall all be glad to hear that later on in the discussion.
As the minister quoted tonight, the policy of the government seems to be-well, I should like to quote again a part of what the minister quoted, which is taken from page 3938 of Hansard of June 21, 1950:
Indeed, it may be said that ever since confederation the underlying purpose of Indian administration has been to prepare the Indians for full citizenship with the same rights and responsibilities as those enjoyed and accepted by other members of the community. This aim has not been lost sight of in the preparation of the bill.
The ultimate goal of our Indian policy is the integration of the Indians into the general life and economy of the country.
The minister said tonight that there is a great difference between integration and assimilation. I took the trouble to look these words up in the dictionary, and I found that the word assimilate means to make like, to compare, to absorb into the system; while the word integrate means to complete by the addition of parts, or the binding into a whole. As has been said, obviously that is not the desire of the Indians in this country-most definitely not. So far as I can see, there is so little difference between the two words that I do not think the Indians are going to be any happier with the word integration than they would have been with the word assimilation.	.
I do not think I could do better than to read what appears in the brief presented last September by the Six Nations Indians, on that particular point. This brief was presented in connection with the bill before the house last year, but it would have the same bearing at this time. They said:
As is common to every national group, our prime desire is to retain our racial identity. We have no desire to be assimilated into the country at large, and only by preserving our reserves can we attain this objective. We had earnestly hoped the new act would give us the protection guaranteed by our treaties, but we note with alarm the provisions

made (section 42) whereby we could be removed from our reserves, when the only security that we know Is tied up in our reservations lands. Our people feel that the proposed new Indian act is an element in the long-awaited for campaign to abolish our reservations and defraud our people of their lands. If the abolishing of our reservations is the present intention of the government, they are only confirming our people's long, deep-seated fears and suspicions. The government can only do this by breaking treaties, and that is by breaking faith with a people who have never broken a treaty with the government. Let the government keep faith with our people, and with themselves.
And then, further on:
The white man in this country tends to get very excited about any threat to individual freedom, but ignores too much any curtailment of the rights of a group to an existence in their own way of life. Section 113 makes provision for the compulsory exile of any Indian or band, who, in the opinion of the minister, shows any progress or ability. We are opposed to group or individual enfranchisement which would mean losing our identity as Indian groups, and our personal identification as an Indian. We must be guaranteed the right to retain the land which the white man calls reservations, and which our people call home.
That is the point I am trying to bring out.
The minister has said that it is not intended to do some of the things set out in the bill. As I said before, in the debate on second reading one is supposed only to discuss the principle. However I do wish to call attention to section 4(2) of the bill because it is my contention that under it the governor in council has power to do almost anything it wishes to any reserve or to any Indian on a reservation. I should appreciate it greatly if the minister could point out that in this I am mistaken.
I am sure we have faith that the minister would not do anything detrimental to the Indians. Nevertheless as I read that subsection and note the power it contains I am led to the conclusion that it is an absolute contradiction of the democratic principles of British justice. Through it the minister could remove Indians from reservations and cause new bands to be set up, for which special provision is made in section 17. Bands can also be amalgamated.
I contend that section 4(2) does not give justice to the Indians. It would not be considered justice for white people; why should it be so considered for the Indians of Canada? So long as the government insists upon retaining that section in the bill I cannot give it my support. It is a complete negation of the other good sections in the measure. By this one section all that is good in it can be destroyed. I would strongly urge that it be deleted by the government, and also that the special committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be reconvened so that this measure might be placed before it for further consideration.
Indian Act
I understand the minister has said that he would favour that procedure if it were desired.
I believe that when the minister realizes the power he has in section 4(2) he will consider favourably its withdrawal. Certainly I hope he will take that course.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the minister upon the frank statement he made. It is a pleasure to hear a minister explain a measure as thoroughly as did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) this evening. I should not like him to think for one moment that I agree with everything he said-because I do not. The fact remains, however, that it was a frank statement, anyway.
I shall not speak at length at this time because I think more can be done, and we can do a better job, in the special committee. What I shall say now for a few moments will be general! As everyone knows, most Indians are wards of the government and have no vote. They have no representatives in parliament and must depend entirely upon the sympathy of government and departmental officials. Under those circumstances the Indians at times suffer great disadvantages when they attempt to air their grievances or have injustices corrected.
I understand from different sources that the Indians in eastern Canada are beginning to take their place in industry and agriculture. While serving on the Indian affairs committee I had the privilege and pleasure of seeing for myself conditions among the Indians. Indians on the prairies, especially in the northern parts, and in parts of my old constituency, still stick largely to their original habits of living by hunting, trapping and fishing. According to information I received, when I visited reservations on the Pacific coast, it would seem that there are many instances where the Indians fit into the white man's life, where they work as loggers and fishermen. However, from everywhere one hears reports of the desperate conditions of poverty and the ill health resulting from the conditions under which they live.
With the Indian population on the increase this bill becomes necessary. It is not possible or desirable to treat Indians perpetually as alien enemies in our midst. They must eventually be brought to the stage where they can mingle with whites on terms of equality. We owe a great debt to the Indian. We got this great country of ours from them and in return we pay $5 per year each to all treaty Indians. That seems little to give in exchange for a country.

Indian Act
They are confined to their reserves and the treatment handed out to them is not always satisfactory. When the government made the agreements with the Indians they promised them education and medical care, and assured living room as long as the sun shone, the grass grew and the rivers flowed. None of those promises have been carried out to the satisfaction of most Indians. Changes take place rapidly these days and since the Indian lives largely in the past, and in the present, since he is largely untrained, he gives little thought to tomorrow. The adjustments in his mode of living made necessary by present-day conditions are beyond the thoughts of most of these men of the bush. Having been wards of the government for years they have grown accustomed to the care and help given by the Indian affairs branch.
I invite you to consider some of their problems. The education of the Indian is a difficult problem but one that is not incapable of being solved if approached with intelligence and sympathy. There are two systems in operation today, the day school and the residential or boarding school. Various religious bodies have co-operated with the Indian branch in establishing residential schools which are carried on at a charge of so much per pupil. The day school on the reserve, more especially in the north, is conducted after the manner of our one-roomed schools. This type of school is faced with the difficulty of the parents of the Indian children being on travel most of the time and not placing any value on education. In order to earn a living the Indians must travel most of the time and as a consequence regular attendance at school is difficult. This does not give the teacher much chance, no matter how good he or she may be.
No doubt the residential school was created to overcome the difficulties experienced with the day school. The pupils live at the residential school during the school year. They are away from their parents who are on the reserve. The boys and girls who are selected to attend the residential or boarding school, those whose parents are willing to let them go, are checked by the doctors and only the healthiest are taken, those who are free from t.b. and other ailments. Children who are suffering from t.b. and who need more care than other children are generally left at home.
At the age of sixteen years these boys and girls are returned to their homes on the reserves. The boy who returns from a residential school cannot hunt, trap or fish, and the girl cannot keep house in an Indian home. All they have to show for their years at school is a superiority complex and a grouch.

The children who attend the day school on the reserve receive the same education as the children attending the residential school, but they have the opportunity to learn how to live on the reserve under existing conditions. The boys learn how to hunt, trap and fish and do other things essential to their future life in the bush. The girls learn to make bannock under primitive conditions, and learn how to cook over a bush fire.
The boys and girls who attend the residential school learn agriculture and domestic science in addition to the subjects taught at the day school.' They are well taken care of, have good food and clothing. But in the north country neither agriculture nor domestic science fits into the reserve picture of today. Children attending these schools have to learn to speak English while their parents may only speak the native tongue. The girls learn to wash and cook by electricity and they become accustomed to other modern living conditions of the white people. The boys see modern agricultural implements at work. In neither case do these children find an opportunity to use these things in the environment to which they go back.
No doubt the faults in this system could be corrected by taking the more promising pupils away for further education. The boys could be sent to vocational schools to learn trades and skills, while the girls could be trained as nurses. They would no doubt be able to return as -men and women to act as leaders in the community they had left when young. Those who have studied the Indians assure me that there are some who show great promise and aptitude to learn leadership and who would make good leaders in their communities.
Previously I have pointed out to the house how clever Indians are when in the bush. I have seen them there and it is really remarkable what they can do. I am quite hopeful that, if they are given the; opportunity, especially after what I have seen done in New Zealand with the Maoris, after twenty-five years we will see a tremendous difference in our Indians. The Indian will have to be fitted into our economy. While it may take years, the sooner we start, the better. It is to be hoped that the day is not far distant when every reserve will have its own day school. The best teachers should be encouraged to take up this work. They should be paid and treated so well that they will take on the teaching of Indians as a lifework of a missionary nature.
Outstanding Indian students should be permitted to work for a university degree and carry on studies that will train them for the

complex task of assisting their own people who today stand bewildered between two totally different cultures.
Coming to the economic needs of the Indian, little can be done in any direction until a more satisfactory economic basis is laid down for them. In the past the Indian was wholly dependent for his means of subsistence on the bush and the lake. Then the coming of traders provided employment for them, and in some cases a better market for their products. The old sources of food have gradually been disappearing.
The airplane is supplanting the canoe for passenger and freight traffic. One can make a journey into the wilderness today in comfort in an hour or two which would require days by canoe, to say nothing of mosquitoes, black flies, portages and hard beds on the ground. There again the Indian has lost another source of revenue. There are still plenty of fish in the lakes but if commercial fishing should be encouraged the Indians will have again lost a source of food supply. Distance from the market has kept these lakes from being profitable commercial enterprises but with the development of the airplane fishing in them may become profitable.
A great deal could be accomplished by the existing teachers, missionaries and doctors if a community centre were established on each reserve. If a hall were secured that was suitable for handicraft studies, health classes, adult classes in English, reading and writing, indoor sports, boy and girl scout movements, it would be a step in the right direction. Never having had such a thing as a community centre, the Indians have no conception of what an important part it would play in their future life. If the government could start something like that on one or two reserves where there are good leaders I am quite sure that the Indians could be got to co-operate.
The problem of the livelihood of the Indian is more complex and difficult, and what must be done depends in detail on the part of the country under consideration. However, one principle unites all requirements, namely, that while the Indian was free to roam at large he gained his living by wandering freely wherever food could be found. Now he is confined to a small area and must get his living therefrom. I wish to congratulate the federal and provincial governments on the policy they have adopted to handle furs for the Indians. The minister talked about that a few minutes ago. Their money is divided into twelve payments. I think the dominion government does that in cooperation with the provincial governments. It is going to be a great lesson to the Indians
Indian Act
to know that they will get their money by the month and will have something to spend every month in the year.
As I said before, it has been a failing of the Indian that he does not look forward to tomorrow. Under the policy adopted the families of the trappers for the first time have known the security of a regular monthly income which can still be supplemented as usual of course by casual labour or the sale of hay and wood. I see no reason why the plan should not work in other districts. It protects the Indians and enriches the country at the same time. It is to be hoped that the project will be manned and operated almost entirely by Indians who are showing a great liking for the work. Something can be done by way of gardens in the patches of soil among the rocks but the Indians are hunters and eaters of meat rather than vegetarians, and it is difficult to interest them in any form of agriculture.
In the same way I believe that forestry and lumbering operations can be developed and probably fisheries on the west coast. It will be a matter of guiding them in the principle of preserving the resources entrusted to them so that they may become independent and regain their place in Canadian life. The Indian is not lazy and he will work well and hard at the kind of work that is natural to him. Canada owes at least this much to these people, who are true Canadians.
I should like to see the minister set up an Indian affairs committee. I am sorry that members of the House of Commons were not able to be present at his interview with the eighteen Indians, I think the minister said, who came to see him to present their pleas. If they were the same kind of Indians that I have dealt with in the past, I wonder if they were just quite clear on what the minister had to say to them. But no doubt the minister will tell us more about that.
When the minister was speaking he talked about land being held by non-Indians. Perhaps he will explain that further to us the next time he speaks. If one Indian has the right to sell to another Indian he would not be allowed to sell to a non-Indian, or could he sell to a non-Indian and thereby in the course of time the Indian reserve would be whittled away so that it was no longer a reserve. I am glad that the clause to the effect that a reservation could be moved away from a town has been withdrawn from the bill. In the maritime provinces we had two or three instances where towns were quite anxious that these people be moved elsewhere.
The minister dealt with the matter of a claims commission. I have always advocated a claims commission and I still think that one

Indian Act
is necessary. However, if the minister has the assurance of the Indians that they have no further claims then there will be no need for a claims commission, but from what I know of the Indians in my own constituency and Indians I meet from time to time they still have claims. I do not think that we should go on raising another generation of Indians for the next twenty-five years allowing them to believe that they have claims if they have none. It is only by a claims commission that I think we can overcome that situation.
I have not touched on the matter of health because the government has made wonderful improvements in health in the last seven or eight years. I have had the pleasure of travelling through the north country and visiting some of the hospitals. I have seen some of the work they are doing, andi if the rest of the Indian department bestirs itself and does as good a job as those who are looking after health are doing-and I do not want them to relax in any way-it will be a good thing for everybody concerned..


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with intense interest to the statement which the minister made in moving second reading of Bill No. 79. Like my hon. friend, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), I wish to congratulate him most sincerely on the straightforward and detailed statement that he made tonight. I think that the minister has shown a remarkable grasp of the whole Indian problem, and has presented in the house tonight a statement which it seems to me will go down in history as one of the very first and most important recognizing the principle that these are a noble people we are dealing with. Over the past few years it seems to me there has been a growing consciousness of that fact. I began to notice that it started about the time that the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) was the chairman of the Indian affairs committee investigating this whole problem and the details of the lives and affairs of the Indians. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) had a good deal to do with it, as well as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) and others. I appreciate very much the growing sentiment we encounter on every side that we should look upon the Indians as brothers, as valuable human beings who have rights which must be protected.
It is perfectly obvious to me that the minister has gained the confidence of the Indians
of this country. That speaks very well for him, because the Indians have a sixth sense when it comes to measuring people. They are convinced that our minister is honest, I am told, and once you can get the Indians to admit that the minister responsible for the administration of Indian affairs is an honest man, he will get co-operation from them. I have only one suggestion to make to the minister at this time; that is, that he give very careful consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member for Selkirk that the bill be submitted to an Indian affairs committee.


Walter Edward Harris: May I assure the hon. member that just as soon as second reading is given we will move that it go to a special committee.


Solon Earl Low: That is excellent. Among other
reasons for so doing, that will further enhance the prestige of the minister among the Indians and will cause their confidence in him to grow even more; and in my judgment that is a desirable thing.
I thought I would make these few introductory remarks and then move to adjourn the debate, because I should like to say something more when this bill comes up again.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said:	On Monday the Minister of
Finance will table further supplementary estimates. Then he will move to go into committee of supply and ask for interim supply. Then the further supplementary estimates will be considered. After that we will continue with Bill No. 79, respecting Indians. If it is given second reading the minister intends to ask unanimous consent to move to set up a special committee to which this bill would be referred. Then we can take up some small bills, No. 148, No. 80 and No. 130, though perhaps not in that order.


Some hon. Members:: What is Bill No. 148?


Alphonse Fournier: It is a bill to authorize or approve the construction of a bridge across the St. Lawrence near Valleyfield.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.



IS, 1951

[Stage Direction]
Appendix "A"

[Stage Direction]
Office of The Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, February 6, 1951
Hon. Douglas Campbell, M.L.A.,
Premier of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letter of January 31, enclosing a memorandum setting out the conclusions that the government of Manitoba has reached with respect to the financial proposals presented at the federal-provincial conference in December.
I should like to assure you that your representations will receive careful consideration by my colleagues and myself.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Office of the Premier Province of Manitoba
Winnipeg, January 31, 1951
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, P.C., K.C.,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
It has taken the government of Manitoba some time to thoroughly review in cabinet council the various proposals made at the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa December 4 to 7, 1950. We have given these proposals careful scrutiny both from the standpoint of their immediate effect upon Manitoba and their long-term effect upon Canada as a whole. Our views of the two constitutional amendments dealing with old age pensions and retail sales tax have been forwarded in a letter to Hon. Stuart S. Garson, Minister of Justice. The comments and suggestions which we submit in the statement which accompanies this letter set out the conclusions we have reached with respect to the financial proposals.
Let me take this opportunity to express, on behalf of the government of Manitoba, our appreciation that the conference was held and that proposals of the importance of those which your government made were presented for discussion at that conference. We are of the firm view that the people of Manitoba, in common with Canadians generally, have benefited substantially from the financial agreements which are now in effect. We believe that the continuation of the principles which underlie those agreements and the new federal proposals is basic to effective and harmonious federal-provincial financial relations and to a healthy federal system in Canada. The requests for the elimination of what we think are certain undesirable features in your government's proposals are made for the purpose of reaching an agreement which will be of the greatest possible benefit to the people of Canada and which will establish a more generally acceptable basis for future agreements.
We trust that the suggestions we make herewith will be given early and careful consideration by your government.
Yours very truly,
Douglas Campbell

[Stage Direction]
This statement is intended to outline the views of the Manitoba government on certain features of the financial proposals submitted by the federal government to the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa, December 4 to 7, 1950. The Manitoba government is pleased that an opportunity was afforded the various governments to discuss the nature of the new federal-provincial financial agreements to come into effect at the conclusion of the present agreements. We were heartened by the fact that the federal government proposed that the fundamentals of the present agreements should be continued and that its views were presented in such a spirit of good will and amity and that that same spirit prevailed throughout the conference. We welcome the assurance by the federal representatives that the proposals were intended only as a basis for discussion, that each province should feel free to accept or reject them as it saw fit, and that there would be no attempt to impose the views of the federal government upon the provinces.
At the same time, however, we cannot avoid feeling some disappointment that it was felt necessary to limit the scope of the conference, and that greater attention was not given to other important matters which are of joint concern to the provincial and federal governments. In his opening statement to the conference, the premier of Manitoba laid particular stress upon the need for joint measures looking to the development of our natural resources and looking to the maximum possible use of our resources, our capital equipment and our manpower. In the unfortunate international situation in which we now find ourselves, it seems to us that there is need for more emphasis upon this aspect of our joint federal-provincial arrangements, and that we should not let our concern with the tax rental agreements and with old age security obscure the fact that, in the most fundamental sense, our strength in international affairs, our ability to support social welfare programs, and the ability of our people to meet the heavy tax load placed upon them, will depend upon the total productive effort which is achieved.
However, it is not our purpose to elaborate upon this point in this statement, but rather to discuss some specific aspects of the federal proposals.
We are gratified that the sound fundamental character of the tax rental agreements is continued in your new proposals and that the payments offered to the provinces will be slightly larger under the new proposal than under the existing agreement. Your estimates submitted to the conference indicate that the payment to Manitoba in 1952-53, the first year to which the new agreements are to apply, will be roughly $670,000,
[Stage Direction]
Appendix "A"
or approximately 85 cents per capita higher than if the present agreements were continued into that year.
We fully appreciate that under the new proposal the guaranteed minimum payment is substantially larger than under the present agreement. The guaranteed minimum will, however, assist the provinces only if there is a substantial decline in the level of Canadian prices or if the general level of business activity in Canada declines, with the result that the provincial revenues decline while costs of providing provincial services remain fixed or decline much more slowly than revenues. In view of this fact it seems to us that under present circumstances the major consideration should be the level of the actual payments rather than the level of the guaranteed minimum.
In our view the small increase in the actual payments to Manitoba under the new proposal will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the province to undertake any extensive increase in provincial expenditures in many programs which we consider to be worthy of added assistance, both from the point of view of increasing the wealth and productivity of the nation and from the point of view of providing a greater measure of security and service to our people.
In his statement at the opening of the conference the premier of this province dealt briefly with a number of fields in which we feel there should be greater recognition of the responsibility of the nation as a whole in supporting the cost of services to those citizens who happen to be located in particular provinces or municipalities. He pointed out the nation-wide character of our modern business activity and suggested that it was important to have in Canada a mechanism by which income and corporation taxes collected from these nationwide enterprises can be made available to support the services provided by the provinces and the municipalities in the many regions where the activities of those enterprises are carried on. After discussing this point at some length, he offered the opinion that in line with this principle the federal treasury should assume a larger share of the cost of such items as old age pensions, unemployment assistance, education, assistance to unemployables and health services. In addition he expressed the view that federal financial assistance should be made available for projects looking tov/ards the maximum utilization and conservation of all the natural resources of the country. With the exception of the old age pension proposal which, if accepted by Manitoba, may well cost the province more than the present arrangement, the only manner in which the federal proposals in any way deal with the cost of the items just mentioned is the additional 85 cents per head of population which the province will receive as a result of the change in the tax rental formula. In our view this is quite inadequate and leaves the provinces and the municipalities under the necessity of paying the heavy cost of services in these fields out of revenue sources which are not sufficient to support them.
One of the problems which arises out of this situation is the way in which the provinces deal with the responsibilities and the financial resources of the municipalities within their territory. We in Manitoba, in common with the rest of the provinces of Canada, have endeavoured to give as much financial assistance as possible to the municipalities within our province. To some extent this assistance is provided by direct payments to the municipality, but in Manitoba the largest single item is the grant paid by the province to school boards. By paying a substantial part of the cost of education, these grants to school boards reduce the burden upon municipalities by reducing the amount which the school boards would otherwise
be forced to ask the municipality to levy as municipal taxes. The Manitoba government has been anxious to increase assistance to the municipalities, but if the only additional revenue available to us through the new tax rental agreements is to be the small amount which I have mentioned, it will be very difficult for us to add to the size of our grants to municipalities and, at the same time, continue to maintain a satisfactory standard of services in other fields of provincial responsibility without involving ourselves in serious financial difficulties leading ultimately to a level of provincial taxation which is, in our view, unsound. For this reason the government of Manitoba, the municipalities, the school boards and the people of the province in general, are all vitally concerned with the size of the payments under the tax rental agreements, and we are all disappointed that the federal government has not felt it possible to offer payments on a more adequate scale.
In addition to our disappointment that the size of the tax rental payments has not been increased to a larger extent, we would like to record some dissatisfaction with the new formula which has been introduced for calculating the relative sizes of the payments as between the different provinces. We refer to the tax potential formula which introduces a principle which if agreed to would be likely to be reflected in future agreements and which would inevitably lead towards a situation in which payments to the wealthier provinces would be larger per capita than to the less developed provinces. In the present proposals this tax potential formula is not of great significance, but if we recognize the fact that tax rental agreements of this general type will undoubtedly be a feature of federal-provincial relations for many years to come, and if we recognize the further fact that the principles accepted in one agreement will likely establish the starting point for the negotiation of future agreements, then it follows that the introduction of an unsound principle in the present proposals is of more significance than the relatively small effect which it has upon the immediate future.
In all systems based upon the federal principle, and, indeed, in all government systems in which a senior government operates within a territory in which there are a number of other governments responsible for smaller areas, some consideration must be given to the fact that in a great many cases government services are provided and government costs are incurred in jurisdictions different from those in which tax revenues are collected. In recent years and to an increasing extent this situation has been met by instituting arrangements under which taxes are collected by the central government from industries operating over the entire area, and are paid out to the local governments in accordance with some formula which takes into the account the fiscal needs of the local government. In other words the formula makes larger payments in those local government areas which are less able to support themselves out of locally collected taxes. This principle was reflected in the system of fiscal need grants which existed in Canada during the 1930's. It was explicitly stated and strongly supported by the Rowell-Sirois report. It formed the basic principle underlying the 1945 proposals of the federal government. It forms the basis of nearly all the systems of grants from the Canadian provinces to the municipalities within their borders. In every case the government operating over the larger area makes grants to the governments operating in the local areas in such a way that the grants are larger per capita to those local areas which are called upon to support heavy costs for education, welfare and the like, while containing within their borders none of the great centres in which incomes concentrate and from which tax revenues can be collected in large volume.

If we disregard the statutory subsidies which are paid because of arrangements entered into in the past which are now part of the established structure of Canadian government, the essential basis of the present agreements is that the federal government pays to each province as a guaranteed minimum, either $15 per capita or $12.75 per capita plus an amount equal to 50 per cent of the corporation and income tax collections in that province in 1941. That guaranteed minimum is then increased by the percentage increase in population in the province and by the percentage increase in gross national product per capita in Canada as a whole. In other words, except for the item of 50 per cent of the 1941 tax collections, the principle is that of uniform per capita grants. In the new proposal another factor is introduced, that of tax potential, under which grants would be larger per capita to those provinces with larger tax potential, that is, to those provinces which have the best opportunity to collect taxes on their own behalf and which, therefore, have less need for financial assistance.
The present agreements departed from the principle of fiscal need to the extent represented by 50 per cent of the 1941 tax collections. The new proposal departs to a much more important extent by explicitly recognizing tax potential and by recognizing it not as a fixed item b&sed upon the past but as an item which will presumably be recalculated at the time any new agreement is under negotiation and which will increase in importance if certain parts of the country develop more rapidly than others. If it should happen that all parts of the country develop uniformly, then the tax potential formula will be of no significance and there is no point in introducing this additional complication. If, on the other hand, the industrialized provinces continue to develop more rapidly than the less industrialized provinces, then the tax potential formula will assume increasing importance and will be positively contradictory to the principle of fiscal need.
We do not argufe that fiscal need should be the only criterion. We recognize that, in dealing with problems of the complexity of this one, a great variety of considerations must be dealt with. But we do say that the grants out of income and corporation taxes should be at least as high per capita to the less developed provinces as to the wealthier provinces, and that the principle of fiscal need should not be directly reversed by providing larger payments to those very provinces in which income tends to concentrate and which therefore have less need of assistance.
It may be that in order to secure the agreement of the more well-to-do provinces, the payments to them will have to reflect in some degree the tax revenue which they could themselves collect. If so, we have no objection to establishing a payment to them sufficient to cover the amount of taxes which they could collect from the tax potential which is available to them. But if that is done we think that the sound principle which underlies all these arrangements should continue to be followed, and that increases at least as large per capita should be made in the payments to the less wealthy provinces.
One other feature of the federal government proposals which is not satisfactory to us is the suggestion that, in the escalator clause for calculating the extent to which the payments to the provinces under the tax rental agreement will exceed the guaranteed minimum, the calculation for gross national product should exclude the item of indirect taxes.
Appendix "A"
The provision for an increase in the size of the payments in proportion to the increase in gross national product per capita serves two purposes in the present formula. In the first place it provides an adjustment for changes in price level resulting from the general inflation through which the world is passing. In the second place it reflects changes in the total productive output of the country. Our officials inform us. that in their opinion the gross national product formula is probably the most satisfactory and convenient measure that exists for those purposes, but that it is not possible to be precisely accurate in such adjustments and that therefore the present formula must always be looked upon as giving only a rough approximation of the real changes. For this reason they think it somewhat inappropriate that a small refinement such as the elimination of indirect taxes should be proposed in a calculation which in itself is subject to relatively wide variation in estimate as illustrated by the fact that the official publication in which the gross national product figures appear carries an item entitled "Residual Error of Estimate" which has in several years amounted to more than $200 million. They therefore feel that the proposal to eliminate the indirect tax item is an over-refinement of little statistical validity in the light of the nature of the figures involved.
In addition we see no valid argument in principle for removing the indirect tax item. In proposing that it should be removed Mr. Abbott expressed the view that to fail to exclude it would have the serious defect that any change in government policy regarding the general character of taxes would affect the amount of the payments to the provinces. There are, of course, a large number of other ways in which a change in government policy would affect the size of gross national product and therefore change the amount of the payments to the provinces. Mr. Abbott illustrated the problem with the suggestion that there might be a decrease in indirect taxation; but the much more significant consideration is what the position would be should there be an increase in sales tax, either by the federal government or by the provinces. Our estimate is that if the proposed change is made, every one per cent increase in the total revenue collected in Canada from indirect taxes would reduce the payment to Manitoba something between $25,000 and $30,000 per year less than the amount which would be payable to Manitoba if the gross national product figure continued to be used as in the present formula.
If indirect taxes are increased in that way, the cost of government services, both in the provinces and in the municipalities, will inevitably reflect those increases, partly through higher prices for goods purchased and partly through the reaction upon living costs and upon the level of salaries which must be paid. Furthermore, an increase of indirect taxes by the federal government, or the introduction of indirect taxes by several of the provinces, would inevitably be reflected in the cost of government in other provinces which were receiving no additional revenue from that source. Under those circumstances it seems to us proper that such higher indirect taxes should be reflected in the formula by which the payments to the provinces are calculated. For these reasons we think that the proposal to eliminate indirect taxes should not be carried out.
[Stage Direction]
Appendix "B"

[Stage Direction]
1.	On February 28, March 1, 2 and 3 of this year, a conference was held with representative Indians and officers of Indian associations from all of those regions of Canada where there is an Indian population, except the Northwest Territories. The minister attended all of these meetings in the capacity of chairman. The deputy minister and officials of the Indian affairs branch of the department were also present.
2.	The main purpose of this historic conference was to discuss the provisions of Bill 79 to revise the Indian Act and to give the representatives an opportunity to present their opinions. Every section of the bill was read in the conference and was explained. Opinions were expressed and recorded, and if, after discussion, suggestions for changes were made, these were noted.
3.	Upon conclusion of this phase of the work of the conference there was a general discussion about all matters of Indian affairs and administration of the Indian Act which proved most useful and, where appropriate, will be used as a guide for future action by the department.
4.	It was evident from the discussion that the problem of Indian affairs varied greatly from reserve to reserve. It was recognized that the Indians of the several provinces appeared to have differing rights and experiences, and that these differences accounted for the variety of viewpoints expressed towards particular sections of the bill. Nevertheless, the opinions of all present were stated not only for the purpose of presenting the local viewpoint, but also in an effort to find a common, advantageous ground so as to advance the welfare of the Indian people.
5.	One of the representatives stated that as far as he and his people were concerned, they did not wish to have any changes made to the present Indian Act since they found it to be satisfactory for their purposes.
6.	Subject to this statement, the conference noted that there was unanimous support for 103 sections of the bill. Opinion varied with respect to the remaining sections as will be explained in more detail later. However, the results of the discussions by those representatives favoring new legislation may be summarized as follows: of the 124 sections, 103 sections were unanimously supported; 118 sections were supported by the majority of those present; only 6 sections were opposed by a majority of the representatives and of these, 2 were unanimously opposed.
7.	All of the representatives present at the conference agreed that the Government of Canada should continue to extend self government to the Indian band councils consistent with their demonstrated ability to exercise increasing responsibility.
8.	The representatives at this conference were assured that all of their representations had been noted and would be drawn to the attention of the government and parliament during the later stages of the Indian bill. It was also indicated that full consideration would be given to the suggestions made for alterations to those sections of the bill which did not meet with the general approval of
the representatives. To this end, the representations which were made at the conference will now be outlined to the house.
9.	The first sections to be dealt with will be those which were opposed by all of the representatives present.
10.	With respect to section 86, all of the representatives were of the opinion that this section did not go far enough in providing tax exemption for Indians, and they were opposed to sub-section 2 because it relates to a waiver of exemption under the Dominion Elections Act. They recommended that voting privileges should not be conditional upon signing a waiver. It was also asserted that under Article 13 of the Terms of Union between Canada and the province of British Columbia the Indians of British Columbia were not liable to be so taxed. It was suggested that some consideration should be given to amending the Dominion Elections Act in order to do away with the waiver.
11.	All of the representatives were opposed to section 112 which is the section dealing with enfranchisement after enquiry and it was drawn to the attention of the conference that the opposition to this section had been recorded in a number of briefs submitted to the minister.
12.	Of these six sections opposed by a majority, four (93-96) dealt with the sale to Indians, and possession by them, of intoxicants.
13.	Regarding these sections, there were three views expressed,- (1) that the provisions dealing with intoxicants contained in the present act be continued; that is, complete prohibition; (2) that provincial liquor laws be made applicable to Indians;
(3) a compromise measure, such as is contemplated by section 95, which would allow the Indians to consume intoxicants in public places in accordance with the laws of the provinces, but which would not permit them to be in possession of package goods nor to take liquor on a reserve.
14. There was a wide range of opinion with respect to these sections. Many of the representatives favored provincial liquor laws, while others were strongly opposed to any change in the act. It was said that the present liquor provisions could not and should not be changed with respect to those Indians under Treaty 6 in Alberta and in other parts of the province not covered by this treaty. Some of the representatives stated that if the provincial laws could not be made applicable to the Indians, they would be prepared to accept the provisions made in Bill 79. It is apparent, therefore, that with so many different views expressed, the conference did not reach any general agreement on this subject.
15.	The following sections were opposed by one or more of the nineteen representatives but were approved by a majority of those representatives present. The number opposing any of these sections never exceeded six.
16.	It was suggested, with respect to section 11, that the present band lists be accepted as final as to those on those lists, and not subject to revision as provided in the bill (section 9) and that the deletion and addition of names should apply only with respect to those who may hereinafter be added to the band lists.

17.	It was also stated by one representative, with reference to sub-section (e) of this section, that it was unfortunate that an illegitimate child of an Indian woman should be entitled to band membership.
18.	Section 12 (1) (a) (iv) dealing with those persons not entitled to be registered was objected to also on the grounds that it would be possible for persons of predominantly Indian blood to be deprived of band membership through the operation of this provision.
19.	Section 19, dealing with surveys of sub-divisions of reserves, was considered to be very beneficial by some representatives because they felt that it was only through these surveys that an individual owner could definitely establish his claims to land on a reserve. Suggestions were made that in some areas these surveys should be expedited.
20.	However, two other representatives were opposed to this section on the basis that it might lead to allotment. It was indicated that there was no objection to external surveys of reserves but there was objection to surveys for sub-divisions. For instance, it was pointed out that the Indians in southern Alberta were not opposed to surveys of reserves, but that the Indians of central and northern Alberta definitely were, and that because of this opposition no surveys should be made without the consent of a band council.
21.	Similarly, opposition was expressed by two representatives to section 20 (2) dealing with the certificate of possession, the reasons being that the allotment system was not suitable in Alberta.
22.	Sub-section 4 of this section, dealing with temporary possession, was objected to by one representative on the basis that temporary possession led to a feeling of insecurity and that once land had been allotted to an Indian by the band council it should be a permanent allotment not subject to conditions to be imposed by the minister.
23.	Section 32 was approved by all except two of the representatives of the conference. There was opposition initially to the section by one representative who took the view that the Indians should stand on their own feet and gain a knowledge of business by experience. However, this representative withdrew his opposition when it was pointed out that this could be accomplished by the frequent use of sub-section 2, and he was given the assurance that this sub-section would be used when advisable. Another representative, on the other hand, stated very strongly that the Indians should be given the protection provided for in this section and was in opposition to the use of sub-section 2.
24.	Section 61 (2), dealing with the interest payable on Indian moneys held in the consolidated revenue fund, was the subject of considerable discussion. It was the general feeling of all of the representatives present that interest upon Indian moneys should be not less than 5 per cent and it was suggested that the phrase "of not less than 5 per cent" might be written into the sub-section.
23. With respect to section 64 (a) dealing with the expenditure of capital moneys with consent of the band council, two representatives were opposed to this section if it were possible for successive per capita distributions to be made. They were of the opinion that only the per capita amount set out in a surrender should be paid to the members of a band and that the remaining amount should remain as capital funds forever. Other representatives, however, favored subsequent capital distribution.
26.	Section 66 (2) providing for the expenditure of money without consent for the sick, disabled, etc., was generally approved but some representatives were of the opinion that the expenditure of band funds for this purpose was not proper but should be made from public moneys.
27.	Similarly, with respect to section 66 (3) (b) regarding the expenditure of band funds for the
Appendix "B"
prevention and control of diseases on reserves, one representative stated that band funds should not be used for this purpose on the grounds that the Department of National Healtli and Welfare were providing health services to Indians at the present time.
28.	The operation of farms by the department on Indian reserves provided for in section 70 met with approval except for one representative who was opposed to this section because it did not provide for the consent of the band council.
29.	The taxation of Indian dogs (section 72 (1) (d) ) was objected to by one representative because he considered that dogs were a necessity to many Indians.
30.	The composition of the band council as outlined in section 73 (2) was discussed at length, and several of the representatives objected to the minimum number of councillors (2) as being too small. The British Columbia representatives, for instance, pointed out that there were many bands in that area where the councillors may work away from the reserve, and therefore it would be difficult to obtain a quorum at a meeting under this section. It was suggested that the minimum of 2 might be raised to 4.
31.	Section 77 (1) dealing with the tenure of office of chiefs and councillors was also discussed at length and by a considerable number of the representatives. Several of the representatives favoured the 2 year term of office, but other representatives were of the opinion that a term of 2 years was too short a period for chiefs and councillors to gain sufficient experience for the most effective management of band affairs. These representatives thought that a period of from 3 to 5 years would be more suitable. It was also suggested by one representative that the election of chiefs and councillors might be staggered in order to obtain continuity of experienced councillors on the band council.
32.	The question of absentee councillors (section 77 (2) (b) (ii) ) was discussed at some length and it was felt that the provision that the office of the chief or councillor becomes vacant when a chief or councillor has been absent from council meetings for three consecutive months was not practical with respect to those bands who do not hold monthly meetings. It was felt that it would be better if the section were to read "three consecutive meetings" rather than "months". Consideration will be given to those special areas where band councils do not meet monthly.
33.	Section 91 (1), which prohibits departmental employees from trading with the Indians without a licence, was opposed on the basis that it might permit the minister to issue a licence to a departmental employee to trade for profit with an Indian. Although it was pointed out that there are certain civil service regulations which prohibit full-time civil servants in engaging in other business enterprises, it was suggested by the delegation that if it was intended that this section should apply only to part-time agents, then this should be written into the statute.
34.	Section 110 (2) which provides for the grant of land to enfranchised Indians, was discussed by representatives who were of the opinion that this provision might lead to loss of reserve lands, but as the matter rested with the council to make the allotment and because of the ten-year waiting period, the section was agreed to.
35.	Section 111 (2) which provides that a majority vote is required for an order of enfranchisement, was discussed and it was suggested by three representatives that the percentage of electors required to signify their approval should be raised from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. They considered that this was necessary in order to protect the minority.
[Stage Direction]
Appendix "B"
36.	The following sections were discussed at length but were accepted in principle by all of the representatives after clarification:
37.	It was felt by some of the representatives that Indians should be represented in the administration as a means of recognition (section 3 (2)). The representatives were advised that the question of the appointment of an assistant commissioner of Indian status was one which would have to come under the civil service commission as to recruitment, and that the matter would be given further consideration.
38.	There was considerable discussion on sections 5-9 dealing with the registration of Indians and the methods in which these provisions would operate were explained in detail to the representatives. There was general agreement with the provision for appeal of decisions of the registrar regarding the addition to or deletion from band lists to a judge of a county court for final determination.
39.	Payments to persons ceasing to be band members as provided for in section 15 (1)	(a) were
explained at length, but one of the representatives was of the opinion that the crown had no legal right to pay one per capita share of capital and revenue moneys of a band to an Indian upon enfranchisement. It was suggested that a person born into the band had an inalienable interest in property held in common by the band and, therefore, should be entitled to take his share with him when enfranchised. It was also suggested, in connection with this section, that in some instances the Indian band councils had not been notified when Indians applied for enfranchisement. The representative was advised that in the future it would be the policy to advise the band council whenever an application for enfranchisement had been received.
40.	Clarification was requested with respect to section 16 (3). It was thought by one representative that a woman, on transfer from one band to another on the occasion of her marriage, should forthwith receive the full amount of any surplus capital coming to her. It was contended that the minister should not have the discretionary power as to the manner and times at which such a sum should be paid to her. However, it was pointed out that the various cases would be reviewed on their merits, and where it was thought that the woman required the full amount of the difference to set up housekeeping, for instance, then it would be given to her. In other cases where it was thought that the woman concerned might use the money unwisely then it would be in the interest of the Indian woman herself, if the money was paid out over a period of time instead of in one lump sum.
41.	Clarification was sought with respect to section 18 (2) and the representatives were assured that the general intention of this section was to provide authority for the acquisition of land for administrative purposes such as schools, hospitals, cemeteries, and other necessary facilities which would be in the interest of the Indians.
42.	It was suggested with respect to section 28 (2) which provides for the issuing of permits to occupy or use a reserve, that reserve property should not be used privately without the consent of the band council. It was pointed out, however, that permits could not be issued under this section for long periods. Provision is made in this section for temporary use of reserve lands for short periods limited to one year.
43.	Section 34, which is concerned with roads and bridges, was discussed at some length. The question as to the upkeep of roads within a reserve that were, to a large extent, used by the general public was raised. It was contended that, in as much as the Indians paid gasoline taxes, the Indian bands should get the same share of those taxes
as are paid to the municipalities by some of the provinces. It was pointed out that the disposition of the gasoline tax was wholly within the competence of the provincial government.
44.	Section 35 was the subject of a considerable amount of discussion. One representative expressed the fear that it would enable a corporation or a municipality to obtain a statutory authority to expropriate parts of an Indian reserve. Opposition, however, in this case was withdrawn by this representative when it was pointed out that the purpose of this provision was not the wholesale acquisition of land, but that it was intended to cover the use of lands for public utilities and other similar services. This section was accepted after an explanation had been given.
45.	Re section 37 there was an enquiry as to the meaning of the phrase at the beginning of the clause which reads "except where this act otherwise provides" but it was pointed out for purposes of clarification that this phrase refers to action under sections 35 and 110 (2).
46.	When section 39 was discussed it was pointed out by one representative that Indians in the past had surrendered parts of their reserve without knowing thoroughly what was contained in the surrender. It was stated that where an interpreter is used he should be put under oath to give a true account of the terms of surrender. The conference was informed that the departmental regulations or instructions would be examined and that provision would be made for placing such interpreters under oath as requested. It was agreed that there would be no objection to using a nonIndian interpreter, but that in all cases the best interpreter available should be obtained.
47.	With respect to section 46 which deals with wills, it was suggested that it should not be left to the Indian agent to decide whether the Indian was capable of making a will under sub-section (1) (b). The conference was informed that the Indian agent did not make this decision under such circumstances, but that evidence would be obtained from expert sources.
48.	It was agreed by many of the representatives that section 49, which is concerned with the distribution of property, and that those sections relating to wills and descent of property were very beneficial and were in accordance with the recommendations which have been made in this respect. There was some complaint about the length of time it sometimes took to dispose of estates. It was admitted that there were occasions on which there was some delay with respect to the disposition of estates but this was due to a shortage of qualified officers to handle these matters. The conference was informed that, if necessary, additional staff would be employed for this purpose.
49.	It was claimed by one of the representatives that in the past Indian agents had acted in a bureaucratic way in the matter of leasing uncultivated or unused lands (section 58). However, it was pointed out to the conference that this section provided that this could be done only with the consent of the band council. The disposition of sand and gravel from reserves without consent was also discussed. It was pointed out to the conference that this would be done only where there was undue difficulty or delay in obtaining the consent of the band council. This arises where the council members are absent in summer months. The conference was assured that, in any event, leases given under such circumstances would only be renewed with the consent of the band council.
50.	Section 65, dealing with the expenditure of capital, met with general approval. One of the representatives indicated that some difficulty had been experienced in obtaining land for an extension to a hospital. It was pointed out, however,

that action could be taken under section 18 to obtain the land for band purposes and compensation paid from capital moneys for such lands taken under this provision.
51.	The provision of loans to an Indian (section 69) was commended generally by those who commented on it. An enquiry was made as to why these loans could not be extended so that they might be used for building houses. It was pointed out to the conference that the main objective of this section was to provide for loans to Indians for revenue producing projects and that housing, unless it were for rental purposes, was not revenue producing.
52.	There was some objection by some representatives to Indian agents attending council meetings (section 79). However, many representatives thought that the Indian superintendent should be required to attend all council meetings and that he should not deputize anyone to sit in for him.
53.	Discussion of section 80 (powers of the band council) revealed that several of the representatives were concerned about the regulation of motor traffic through their reserve. These representatives were informed that the band council would be able to make by-laws regarding the regulation of traffic within the reserve under this section. On the general question of by-laws, it was explained to the conference that by-laws which did not conflict with regulations made by the minister or the governor in council would be effective. It was generally felt that the powers to be exercised by the band council had been considerably broadened by the bill. The question of licencing non-Indians to operate businesses on reserves was also raised when sub-section (n) of this section was discussed. It was suggested that by-laws regarding businesses could also be made to apply to Indians in a business on the reserve.
54.	With respect to section 82 dealing with money by-laws, some of the representatives were apprehensive that the governor in council might have some power to force Indians to pass money by-laws to tax Indians. The conference was assured that once this section had been applied to a band action under it was by the band council.
55.	The conference representatives asked for clarification of section 87, dealing with the application of provincial laws, and was informed that provincial laws would not apply if they contravened any treaty, and/or any act of parliament, for example the Indian Act.
Appendix "B"
56.	Regarding the appointment of a Justice of the Peace, under section 105, the conference was advised that Indian superintendents would not act as magistrates, except for special reasons, and in areas where ordinary court facilities were not readily available.
57.	The remainder of the sections were approved after explanation.

[Stage Direction]
Conference Members
George Barker, Esq., Hole River, Man., Chief, Hollow Water Band.
Joseph Beauvais, Esq., Caughnawaga, Que., Councillor, Caughnawaga Band Council.
Joseph Dreaver, Esq., Duck Lake, Sask., Chief, Mistawasis Band.
Gilbert Faries, Esq., Moose Factory, Ont., Chief, Moose Factory Band.
Thomas Favel, Esq., Poundmaker, Sask., Chief, Poundmaker Band, and Representative of Queen Victoria Treaty Protective Association.
Thomas Gideon, Esq., Restigouche, Que., Chief, Restigouche Band.
James Gladstone, Esq., Cardston, Alta., President, Indian Association of Alberta.
Dr. P. R. Kelly, Cumberland, B.C., Chairman, Legislative Committee of Native Brotherhood of British Columbia.
Stephen Knockwood, Esq., Micmac, N.S., Chief, Shubenacadie Band.
John Laurie, Esq., Calgary, Alta., Secretary, Indian Association of Alberta.
Gus Mainville, Esq., Fort Frances, Ont., President, Grand Council Treaty No. 3.
Daniel Manuel, Esq., Merritt, B.C., Chief, Upper Nicola Band.
Arnold C. Moses, Esq., Ohsweken, Ont., Secretary, Six Nations Band Council.
Andrew Pauli, Esq., North Vancouver, B.C., President, North American Indian Brotherhood.
Lawrence Pelletier, Esq., Manitowaning, Ont., Manitoulin Island Unceded Band.
Sam Shipman, Esq., Walpole Island, Ont., Chief, Walpole Island Band.
William Scow, Esq., Alert Bay, B.C., President, Native Brotherhood of British Columbia.
John Thompson, Esq., Pine Falls, Man., President, Indian Association of Manitoba.
John B. Tootoosis, Esq., Cutknife, Sask., President, Union of Saskatchewan Indians.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
Vi-r'T i'r.j
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 19, 1951